Question Regarding Gun Opinions - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

But if you do not "advertise" with signs, you have gun people coming in saying "well you have no signage up." So it's a catch 22.

which is why texas made it law that unless there is a very specific sign posted (it details and shows a picture of whats required) then concealed carry is not prohibited. They also added that IF a private property owner (store, church, etc) is not posted properly and then notices you carrying, all they have to do is ask you to leave. The request is considered proper notice and if you do not leave, you are then considered to be trespassing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

As for people shooting where guns are not allowed. IT doesn't matter if the sign is there or not, and I seriously have issues with the argument, "if I were allowed to carry a gun in there, that wouldn't happen." People want to make statements when they do those mass shotings, I seriously doubt they care if there are other people there armed.

There are always exceptions Pan, MOST people looking to make a statement will try to make the biggest statement they can, and that means going to a place where people are going to be unarmed.

I had planned on replying to all of your points, but I don't see the point. No disrespect intended to you Pan, but you have an extremely low regard for the capabilities of people. I've learned that theres just no argument that can combat that except experiencing it for yourself.

Although, in regards to your san francisco point. Only 58% voted for that ban, how do their rights get to supercede the other 42%?

Willravel · 03-31-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Although, in regards to your san francisco point. Only 58% voted for that ban, how do their rights get to supercede the other 42%?

That's how voting works. 48-51% of America voted for Kerry, but Bush is presedent. Did you know that voting for the right representatives can result in an amendment nullifying the second amendment? The right to vote seeimgly superceedes the interpritation of the second amendment that assumes that one has the constitutional right to own a gun.

nezmot · 03-31-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

And you're perfectly ok with that? that people who are killed because the police can't or don't get there in time are just........dead?

An evocative argument, but the government can't and shouldn't be responsible for everything. That's what communists believe. Oh course you don't want to see people dead, but holding the government responsible for the actions of crazy gun-toting lunatics? Where's the sense in that?

samcol · 03-31-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Although, in regards to your san francisco point. Only 58% voted for that ban, how do their rights get to supercede the other 42%?

Good question. I didn't know you could pass a law that outlaws the second amendment. This is equivelent to 58% of the people saying they think freedom of speech is being abused and should be outlawed and a law is then passed banning free speech. Regardless of the views on guns the legality and logic behind this doesn't make any sense. Are we a country of rights and laws, or a country of 'democracy' where the mob always gets its way.

JustJess · 03-31-2006, 09:31 AM

Going back to the actual question posed in the OP - why do SOME gun REFORM advocates think/act like gun owners are super-violent etc.? (And I've not seen anything personally about y'all being racists or something, btw.)

This is why:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dunedan

All the nicities aside, the Victim Disarmament debate must, in the end, be reduced to this:

850,000 dead bodies.
MINIMUM.

That's the number of people, at the very least, that you anti-Rights people are going to have to pile up in order to make even a handgun ban a reality. There are 85,000,000 known, legal gunowners in this country; if even 1% decide to resist you, you will have to kill nearly a million people. You'll also have to bury an unknown ( but probably at least an equal ) number of your Jackboots. You'll be right up there with Pol Pot, aren't you proud?

10% resistance ( a more likely figure, IMO ) puts the body-count you'll need to rack up at 8.5 MILLION. You're getting into Hitler Country now, man...really moving up in the world.

Try to disarm us, and we will SHOOT YOU. You will have to kill us, in significant numbers, to make us stop SHOOTING YOU. You will have to exterminate whole families; women and children and babes-in-arms. You will have to commit a genocide which will write your names in blood and infamy for all of history. You will have to destroy a distinct culture with its' own language and way of life. You will have to become monsters.

If you're fine with that, go ahead. But don't cringe from me and say "That's not what we're going to do! We're just trying to help you! Yes, it IS what you're trying to do. You are intentionally ( and in many cases gleefully ) pushing towards a situation which will precipitate genocide, mass murder, the death of a civilization. You are slouching towards Armageddon, my friends; continue and join the ranks of the Damned. Just don't say nobody warned you.

The_Jazz · 03-31-2006, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

And you're perfectly ok with that? that people who are killed because the police can't or don't get there in time are just........dead?

The police can't stop every irresponsible drunk or speeder or teenaged kid that does something stupid behind the wheel and takes people out. They can't stop every crime and to expect them to is completely unreasonable. We're talking about humans here, and any system involving humans is inherently flawed.

Am I fine with that? Yes. Do I wish the system better? Yes. Do I think that armed civilians enforcing the law is a much more flawed system with a huge potential for failure? Yes. Do I want you or any other armed civilians responsible for protecting me or my family? Absolutely not.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

That's how voting works. 48-51% of America voted for Kerry, but Bush is presedent. Did you know that voting for the right representatives can result in an amendment nullifying the second amendment? The right to vote seeimgly superceedes the interpritation of the second amendment that assumes that one has the constitutional right to own a gun.

To repeal an amendment would take an overwhelming amount of support. If over 75% of the country were of that mindset, then yes, I suppose it could be done, But to have 58% of a locale determine rights for the whole, thats not right.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

An evocative argument, but the government can't and shouldn't be responsible for everything. That's what communists believe. Oh course you don't want to see people dead, but holding the government responsible for the actions of crazy gun-toting lunatics? Where's the sense in that?

so, if we acknowledge that the government can't, or shouldn't, be responsible for everything (of which I certainly agree) then when does it become MY responsibility?

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustJess

Going back to the actual question posed in the OP - why do SOME gun REFORM advocates think/act like gun owners are super-violent etc.? (And I've not seen anything personally about y'all being racists or something, btw.)

This is why:

so you're saying that because 1%, or 10%, refusing to give up a constitutional right makes us super violent?

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

The police can't stop every irresponsible drunk or speeder or teenaged kid that does something stupid behind the wheel and takes people out. They can't stop every crime and to expect them to is completely unreasonable. We're talking about humans here, and any system involving humans is inherently flawed.

Am I fine with that? Yes. Do I wish the system better? Yes. Do I think that armed civilians enforcing the law is a much more flawed system with a huge potential for failure? Yes. Do I want you or any other armed civilians responsible for protecting me or my family? Absolutely not.

then you're living in the right city, because thats exactly what you have. You aren't even allowed to be responsible for your own families safety.

as an afterthought, it dumbfounds me that some of the attitudes that people have about life, especially their own. On top of that, the pitiful opinions that they have in regards to the capabilities of others compared to the ideas that they have about their own as well. It's no wonder this country has gone to hell in a handbasket when people feel they know whats right for everyone else. You say you are fine with the flawed system, I take that to mean that if your kids are killed in front of you because the cops could not get there in time, you're fine with that and thats just plain pathetic. To view life in such a callous fashion is just beyond my comprehension. what is wrong with you people?

Redlemon · 03-31-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

then you're living in the right city, because thats exactly what you have. You aren't even allowed to be responsible for your own families safety.

as an afterthought, it dumbfounds me that some of the attitudes that people have about life, especially their own. On top of that, the pitiful opinions that they have in regards to the capabilities of others compared to the ideas that they have about their own as well. It's no wonder this country has gone to hell in a handbasket when people feel they know whats right for everyone else. You say you are fine with the flawed system, I take that to mean that if your kids are killed in front of you because the cops could not get there in time, you're fine with that and thats just plain pathetic. To view life in such a callous fashion is just beyond my comprehension. what is wrong with you people?

It's all different viewpoints. I read your post, and wonder why you have so much fear in you. And, "people feel they know whats right for everyone else" goes both ways.

I won't change your viewpoint. You won't change mine. Why do I post in Politics? I keep making that mistake.

pan6467 · 03-31-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

which is why texas made it law that unless there is a very specific sign posted (it details and shows a picture of whats required) then concealed carry is not prohibited. They also added that IF a private property owner (store, church, etc) is not posted properly and then notices you carrying, all they have to do is ask you to leave. The request is considered proper notice and if you do not leave, you are then considered to be trespassing.

There are always exceptions Pan, MOST people looking to make a statement will try to make the biggest statement they can, and that means going to a place where people are going to be unarmed.

True, but the argument could be made that they go to courthouses, schools and so on because the statement they wish to make is there.

Just as people who go into McDonald's, or Wal*Marts or wherever. To say shootings will only occur where people are not allowed to have guns.... or that the psychos choose places because they know there are no guns there, is ludicrous.

What of armed guards in the courthouses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

I had planned on replying to all of your points, but I don't see the point. No disrespect intended to you Pan, but you have an extremely low regard for the capabilities of people. I've learned that theres just no argument that can combat that except experiencing it for yourself.

Where do I show "low regard for the capabilities of people"? And yes, that is very offensive to me. You're response here and the attack on me, shows me that you cannot come up with a true rebuttal, without attacking me.

If I truly had "low regard for the capabilities of people", I would be wanting guns banned period. I just believe the vast majority of people whether they carry guns or not, can talk a great game but when in the real situation and the pressure is on, will tend to react very differently then they talk.

Or are you trying to state that every single person carrying a gun will respond the exact same way, and will be perfect shooters and there would be no crossfire or innocents hurt? Which if that's the case, I find as misguided and sad as you obviously found my comments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Although, in regards to your san francisco point. Only 58% voted for that ban, how do their rights get to supercede the other 42%?

That's the point of voting, majority rules. The 42% had their chance to show their case to the people and lost. And I don't know about where you live but a 16% difference in votes, is a landslide where I come from.

But I still don't see how that gives people who live outside that community the right to try to dictate policy and overturn the voice of the people.

Again, that's why the Federal government is so strong. They capitalize on the fighting and have to make laws. And when that is the case we all lose.

But, keep fighting the voice of the people in places you don't live and may never visit. Keep believing that you know what's best for a community you don't even live near. You tell me I have "low regard for the capabilities of people"? Yet you support going into a community where the voters have spoken and want to tell the vast majority there that they are wrong..... and use the courts to do so? Who wants to dictate policy now, who wants to tell whom, "they know what's best for the people"? Not me, I believe in the voices of the people and respect the voting procedures from which our nation was founded upon.

It's like the C&CW laws here in Ohio. The majority voted for it. I may not like it, but it passed, the people have spoken and I respect the law they voted for. I can still speak out and try to get it repealed on a later election, but it is not my right nor should it be, to take it to court and demand the government steps in and repeals it against the will of the majority that voted for it.

If you want to use the tired argument that the above example would allow a law that discriminates against a man's color/religion/ethnicity and so on to be legal. Then by all means. But that argument is a fallacy. There is a huge difference between discrinating between a person, himself and what a person chooses to carry on them.

If your community votes that "no one with blue eyes can own land" and I move there and try to buy land and am denied for that reason. It's illegal because it discriminates me personally, they are singling me and everyone else with blue eyes out. But if push came to shove, I could buy my property and live outside city limits.

Now if San Francisco says, "People are not allowed to have guns within the city limits, except in their own homes." and you get arrested for carrying a gun, then you should suffer the consequences. Because there is no singling out of anybody, and because you knew the law and chose to carry there.

One of the above is discrimination against a person for whom they are and the other is a law for an OPTIONAL appliance one chooses to carry.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

True, but the argument could be made that they go to courthouses, schools and so on because the statement they wish to make is there.

Just as people who go into McDonald's, or Wal*Marts or wherever. To say shootings will only occur where people are not allowed to have guns.... or that the psychos choose places because they know there are no guns there, is ludicrous.

What of armed guards in the courthouses?

Again, I talk about MASS shootings. Specific targets are another matter entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Where do I show "low regard for the capabilities of people"? And yes, that is very offensive to me. You're response here and the attack on me, shows me that you cannot come up with a true rebuttal, without attacking me.

First off, although our opinions differ in some things, i've always held them in respect. I'm sorry if you are offended at my remarks about 'low regard for the capabilities of people', but you clearly state that that is your opinion with the following -

Quote:

Most people, even if they do have guns when surprised, shocked and scared do not know how to react.

If you have people carrying guns in courthouses for fear of some psycho coming in, you have a lot of people with itchy trigger fingers and the second something happens that they aren't ready for, you may get innocent people getting shot because people over-reacted. Or, if it is an attack you may get more people killed because of crossfire.

There's a reason most major cities have SWAT teams and people who specialize in these areas. It is no, not, never a good place for the average Joe to take out his Glock and play Rambo. You're asking for more trouble than it is worth. Do you honestly believe the average Joe (trained in a classroom setting, who basically shot at a paper and took some written exam) and his Glock 9, are going to take down some nut case, who probably doesn't feel pain at the moment, who has more fire power than a Marine, and is ready for anything?

My feeling is the average Joe is shitting himself, IF he is brave enough to pull out his gun his hand is shaking so bad he can't get good aim and misses, perhaps maiming or killing innocents. Meanwhile, the Psycho hears the guns and really lets loose.

So you tell me, is it worth it? I don't think so, and I think the argument that people who carry guns are trained at handling this and the above scenario would never happen is a pipe dream and not based on anything.

How am I to believe that you do not feel that way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

If I truly had "low regard for the capabilities of people", I would be wanting guns banned period. I just believe the vast majority of people whether they carry guns or not, can talk a great game but when in the real situation and the pressure is on, will tend to react very differently then they talk.

Or are you trying to state that every single person carrying a gun will respond the exact same way, and will be perfect shooters and there would be no crossfire or innocents hurt? Which if that's the case, I find as misguided and sad as you obviously found my comments.

I do not believe that everyone that is licensed is going to be prepared to deal with most situations. I believe that maybe 25% of the people that are licensed and have trained still shouldn't be carrying a gun, but of those 25%, most of them will never find the strength to pull it any way if needed. But I do believe that more than half of those who go through the process of getting the training and the license are ready. Of all the people that I deal with on a 'friendship' basis, who are licensed, are MORE than ready. I shoot great, but these guys beat me hands down AND they have taken the extra steps in taking the tactical training that even most cops don't do. They are capable and ready.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

That's the point of voting, majority rules. The 42% had their chance to show their case to the people and lost. And I don't know about where you live but a 16% difference in votes, is a landslide where I come from.

When people are voting on whether to sell acohol in their county, fine, majority rules but we do NOT live in a democracy where mob rule can trample individual rights. As I once read, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We live in a representative republic where a majority does not get to override the rights of the minority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

But I still don't see how that gives people who live outside that community the right to try to dictate policy and overturn the voice of the people.

Are any of the minority S.F.ers NRA members? If they are, then I'd say they got the best representation possible to keep mob rule from violating their rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Again, that's why the Federal government is so strong. They capitalize on the fighting and have to make laws. And when that is the case we all lose.

But, keep fighting the voice of the people in places you don't live and may never visit. Keep believing that you know what's best for a community you don't even live near. You tell me I have "low regard for the capabilities of people"? Yet you support going into a community where the voters have spoken and want to tell the vast majority there that they are wrong..... and use the courts to do so? Who wants to dictate policy now?

I hardly think that by standing up for individual rights is 'dictating policy'. The majority does NOT get to remove the rights of a minority, or have you forgotten about the 9th, 10th, 13th, and 14th amendments of the constitution?

Quote:

Now if San Francisco says, "People are not allowed to have guns within the city limits, except in their own homes." and you get arrested for carrying a gun, then you should suffer the consequences. Because there is no singling out of anybody, and because you knew the law chose to carry there.

The problem is that S.F.ers, if this ban goes through, does not allow ownership PERIOD. Not even in their own homes. If all san fran wanted to do was outlaw handgun carrying in city limits, what do I care. People would still be allowed to use them for defense in their homes, but an outright ban on ownership violates the constitution.

edit - I did want to acknowledge this statement by you

Quote:

If I am to be taken out by a shooter, I'd rather it be the psycho, than an innocent man playing Rambo. The psycho will get his, the innocent man who made a mistake will live with that guilt for the rest of his life.

I can completely understand that. I wouldn't want anyone to feel guilty for shooting anyone instead of the bad guy because of a missed shot, but we'll have to disagree on the part about letting the psycho keep shooting instead of someone playing 'rambo'. without someone shooting back at him, the psycho just gets to keep on killing innocent people and I couldn't live with that.

pan6467 · 03-31-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Again, I talk about MASS shootings. Specific targets are another matter entirely.

First off, although our opinions differ in some things, i've always held them in respect. I'm sorry if you are offended at my remarks about 'low regard for the capabilities of people', but you clearly state that that is your opinion with the following -

How am I to believe that you do not feel that way?

I do not believe that everyone that is licensed is going to be prepared to deal with most situations. I believe that maybe 25% of the people that are licensed and have trained still shouldn't be carrying a gun, but of those 25%, most of them will never find the strength to pull it any way if needed. But I do believe that more than half of those who go through the process of getting the training and the license are ready. Of all the people that I deal with on a 'friendship' basis, who are licensed, are MORE than ready. I shoot great, but these guys beat me hands down AND they have taken the extra steps in taking the tactical training that even most cops don't do. They are capable and ready.

When people are voting on whether to sell acohol in their county, fine, majority rules but we do NOT live in a democracy where mob rule can trample individual rights. As I once read, Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. We live in a representative republic where a majority does not get to override the rights of the minority.

Are any of the minority S.F.ers NRA members? If they are, then I'd say they got the best representation possible to keep mob rule from violating their rights.

I hardly think that by standing up for individual rights is 'dictating policy'. The majority does NOT get to remove the rights of a minority, or have you forgotten about the 9th, 10th, 13th, and 14th amendments of the constitution?

The problem is that S.F.ers, if this ban goes through, does not allow ownership PERIOD. Not even in their own homes. If all san fran wanted to do was outlaw handgun carrying in city limits, what do I care. People would still be allowed to use them for defense in their homes, but an outright ban on ownership violates the constitution.

edit - I did want to acknowledge this statement by you
I can completely understand that. I wouldn't want anyone to feel guilty for shooting anyone instead of the bad guy because of a missed shot, but we'll have to disagree on the part about letting the psycho keep shooting instead of someone playing 'rambo'. without someone shooting back at him, the psycho just gets to keep on killing innocent people and I couldn't live with that.

Edit: I want to acknowledge and thank you for the respect. Yes, we disagree at times, but you do so very respectfully and with honor. I am more the emotional messed up rebel, who's views sometimes get lost in my emotional tone. I don't think we are that far apart on the issue and there is far more common ground then differences.

I can live with how you came up with "low regard for the capabilities of people". I may not like it nor agree with the reasoning on your conclusion, but I am not as offended because of your explanation.

Like you, I watch people and it is my profession to know a little bit about psychology. Personal experience and observations have allowed me to believe most people would not react the way they should. There are exceptions, but the vast majority when facing a situation like that.... I just don't believe would handle it exactly beneficially.

Even if we use your choice of 25% who should not own guns, you still leave the opening that one of those 25% would have a gun and try to play Rambo and make the situation worse by getting more people killed.

That's not a chance I want to take.

I am not that familiar with the SF law, but if it is true they ban all gun ownership, then yes, there is legal recourse there because I truly believe in what you do on your private property, so long as it hurts no one else and does not affect anyone else's rights, you have the right to do as you please. You want to smoke weed in your house, it's your right. You want to own as many weapons as possible because you believe the revolution is coming tomorrow, then by all means own all you want (so long as you are not taking target practice close enough to my property that a ricochet or misfire can hit anyone on my property).

I believe in the rights of the people, I just believe in the voices of the people also and am naive enough to believe that people in communities know what is best for themselves far better than I or the federal government know.

flstf · 03-31-2006, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Although, in regards to your san francisco point. Only 58% voted for that ban, how do their rights get to supercede the other 42%?

That's a good question. Majority usually rules except when the law they pass is found to be unconstitutional. Otherwise in many parts of the country majority rule would still have blacks sitting at the back of the bus, etc..

Private businesses that cater to the general public can set up their own rules but they cannot usually violate constitutional rights. I guess the constitutional right to own firearms does not mean that they cannot be banned from them.

pan6467 · 03-31-2006, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

That's a good question. Majority usually rules except when the law they pass is found to be unconstitutional. Otherwise in many parts of the country majority rule would still have blacks sitting at the back of the bus, etc..

Private businesses that cater to the general public can set up their own rules but they cannot usually violate constitutional rights. I guess the constitutional right to own firearms does not mean that they cannot be banned from them.

But as a store owner you are not banning the rights to own or bear a gun.... you are only saying, "not on my property".

Mojo_PeiPei · 03-31-2006, 12:12 PM

Anybody else think Congress should address the second amendment, amybe clarify it for the modern times? Settle most of this debate once and for all.

The_Jazz · 03-31-2006, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

then you're living in the right city, because thats exactly what you have. You aren't even allowed to be responsible for your own families safety.

as an afterthought, it dumbfounds me that some of the attitudes that people have about life, especially their own. On top of that, the pitiful opinions that they have in regards to the capabilities of others compared to the ideas that they have about their own as well. It's no wonder this country has gone to hell in a handbasket when people feel they know whats right for everyone else. You say you are fine with the flawed system, I take that to mean that if your kids are killed in front of you because the cops could not get there in time, you're fine with that and thats just plain pathetic. To view life in such a callous fashion is just beyond my comprehension. what is wrong with you people?

I am allowed to be responsible for my own family's safety, just not with a handgun. I don't let the kids play in the street or jump off the roof. How would owning a pistol help with either of those? I make sure they know how to swim and that a policeman can help if they're lost. Thank god I have my gun for that (oh wait...)!

Look, I just don't think that you need to carry a gun 24/7 to be safe. In my line of work I get reports all day long of horrible ways that people die. I'm trying to figure out how I can start a thread to tell some of the more interesting stories without risking the anonymity of my clients. For the record, I do write the liability coverage for 4 different manufacturers of guns that at least 10 members here own (last I checked about 6 weeks ago). Guns don't malfunction and kill people, but lots and lots of other things do, like paper bailers, cement trucks, manlifts and scaffolding. In my part of Chicago, I am much more likely to get 1) hit by a car, 2) hit by a bicyclist or 3) die in a fire than get shot.

The_Jazz · 03-31-2006, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Anybody else think Congress should address the second amendment, amybe clarify it for the modern times? Settle most of this debate once and for all.

Good luck with that. Given that the roughly 100 active participants in the politics board can't come up with anything even remotely resembling a consensus, imagine what it would be like when there are powerful folks with a financial stake in the outcome involved in a nation discussion. It would be bedlam - cats and dogs living together, total anarchy!

pan6467 · 03-31-2006, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

Anybody else think Congress should address the second amendment, amybe clarify it for the modern times? Settle most of this debate once and for all.

I don't. Personally, I believe it is up to the communities to decide and the NRA and anyone else should stay the Hell out of it. Let the people decide what's best for them in this area.

Like abortion, school prayer, drugs and most other issues, let the voters decide in each state/city etc.

Think how many millions would be saved from the needless court battles. The less back logged the court systems would be and the less government intrusion there would be.

The people should have the right to vote what's best for their individual communities and government and people outside should respect those wishes.

Life would be much simpler and needless monies spent to enforce idiotic laws that are made to homogenize the country would be freed to be used elsewhere.

flstf · 03-31-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

But as a store owner you are not banning the rights to own or bear a gun.... you are only saying, "not on my property".

Pan, I get your point and I think store owners should have this ability but let me play devil's advocate for a minute and say:

But as a store owner you are not banning the rights of minorities to shop (or add your own protected activity).... you are only saying, "not on my property

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Good luck with that. Given that the roughly 100 active participants in the politics board can't come up with anything even remotely resembling a consensus, imagine what it would be like when there are powerful folks with a financial stake in the outcome involved in a nation discussion. It would be bedlam - cats and dogs living together, total anarchy!

Actually, the 97th congress, US senate did take that up

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

Quote:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

pan6467 · 03-31-2006, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

Pan, I get your point and I think store owners should have this ability but let me play devil's advocate for a minute and say:

But as a store owner you are not banning the rights of minorities to shop (or add your own protected activity).... you are only saying, "not on my property

And they do with signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service".

Considering that the "minority" populations are now basically financial equals it would be foolhardy to say "we won't serve Blacks/Jews/people with blue eyes and so on."

Why? Because you'd miss a lot of money and sales that way. Not to mention boycotts, bad press and so on.

But theoretically and lawfully, you can discriminate in privately owned businesses.... now if you overcharge or treat that minority unfairly once they do do business with you, then that is illegal.

stevo · 03-31-2006, 12:37 PM

I think the point a lot of anit-gun folks miss is that there are things in life you can't control (a out of control vehicle running you down), things you cont control much (like dying in a fire), and things you can control (your own self-defense from a person meaning to do you harm). None of the pro-gun rights folk on this board are arguing that a gun will make them safe from everything. Only that being a well-trained, prepared gun owner puts your self-defense from an attacker in your own hands, more so than not having a gun would. Everyone knows you are more likely to die in a car accident than by a bullet and no one is arguing anything different. But that is no reason to leave your life in the hands of an attacker should you ever be in that situation. Most often the best arguement an anti-gun person can come up with is that it will never happen to you so you don't need to prepare yourself for it.

Redlemon · 03-31-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I think the point a lot of anit-gun folks miss is that there are things in life you can't control (a out of control vehicle running you down), things you cont control much (like dying in a fire), and things you can control (your own self-defense from a person meaning to do you harm). None of the pro-gun rights folk on this board are arguing that a gun will make them safe from everything. Only that being a well-trained, prepared gun owner puts your self-defense from an attacker in your own hands, more so than not having a gun would. Everyone knows you are more likely to die in a car accident than by a bullet and no one is arguing anything different. But that is no reason to leave your life in the hands of an attacker should you ever be in that situation. Most often the best arguement an anti-gun person can come up with is that it will never happen to you so you don't need to prepare yourself for it.

And, for the reverse -- it is possible, but unlikely, that a coconut will fall on my head and kill me on my next trip to the Caribbean.* I could wear a helmet for my entire trip. But I won't.

The non-gun-carrying-group wonders why the gun-carrying-group sees the world as such a dangerous place.

* Coconut deaths significantly outrank shark deaths.

Willravel · 03-31-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Actually, the 97th congress, US senate did take that up

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

I'd prefer to hear something from the Judicial branch. If it's already an amendment, then the legeslature is finished with it. It's time for the courts to decide what this means.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

And, for the reverse -- it is possible, but unlikely, that a coconut will fall on my head and kill me on my next trip to the Caribbean.* I could wear a helmet for my entire trip. But I won't.

The non-gun-carrying-group wonders why the gun-carrying-group sees the world as such a dangerous place.

* Coconut deaths significantly outrank shark deaths.

It could be because we see daily crimes committed by people with guns. I look at the number of murders in chicago in 2004 and can't help but sigh with relief that I don't live in Illinois anymore.

I find it very strange that the serious anti-gunners like to think that it will most likely never happen to them (being a victim of crime) yet are more than willing to accept that they will be one of the first ones shot if a civilian starts shooting a gun at a criminal. I just can't follow that logic.

Willravel · 03-31-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

I think the point a lot of anit-gun folks miss is that there are things in life you can't control (a out of control vehicle running you down), things you cont control much (like dying in a fire), and things you can control (your own self-defense from a person meaning to do you harm). None of the pro-gun rights folk on this board are arguing that a gun will make them safe from everything. Only that being a well-trained, prepared gun owner puts your self-defense from an attacker in your own hands, more so than not having a gun would. Everyone knows you are more likely to die in a car accident than by a bullet and no one is arguing anything different. But that is no reason to leave your life in the hands of an attacker should you ever be in that situation. Most often the best arguement an anti-gun person can come up with is that it will never happen to you so you don't need to prepare yourself for it.

What has to be weighted against that is the danger of gun ownership, legal or illegal. The production and distrubution of guns has a direct tie with illegal arms, by which the very criminals who gun owners are trying to stop aquire their weapons. I see it as no different than any other arms producer: bombs, missles, munitions, etc. It is apparent that the producers don't care who the consumers are. As someone who believes in small government, I think it is their responsibility to stop this from happening. Now, obviously they will not stop producing weapons that continue to fall into the wrong hands on their own. Money > morality in most buisnesses, so I would suggest (like I've done in another gun thread) that we simply hold the manufacturer responsible if their weapon is used in a crime (unless the weapon has been stolen from the person who legally purchased it). If they want to stop lawsuits, then they work harder to make sure that their guns are only legally sold and used.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'd prefer to hear something from the Judicial branch. If it's already an amendment, then the legeslature is finished with it. It's time for the courts to decide what this means.

That same judicial branch that decided on kelo vs. new london?

FYI, the executive branch has also come out on this with a DoJ report confirming the individual right as well.

so with 2 of the 3 branches affirming an individual right, what would be the argument if the courts said no?

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What has to be weighted against that is the danger of gun ownership, legal or illegal. The production and distrubution of guns has a direct tie with illegal arms, by which the very criminals who gun owners are trying to stop aquire their weapons. I see it as no different than any other arms producer: bombs, missles, munitions, etc. It is apparent that the producers don't care who the consumers are. As someone who believes in small government, I think it is their responsibility to stop this from happening. Now, obviously they will not stop producing weapons that continue to fall into the wrong hands on their own. Money > morality in most buisnesses, so I would suggest (like I've done in another gun thread) that we simply hold the manufacturer responsible if their weapon is used in a crime (unless the weapon has been stolen from the person who legally purchased it). If they want to stop lawsuits, then they work harder to make sure that their guns are only legally sold and used.

there are already laws to prevent manufacturers from making illegal gun sales, as well as preventing dealers from doing the same. Do we hold knife manufacturers liable if their knife is used in a crime? How about vacuum cleaners?

http://www.wyff4.com/news/7501397/detail.html

Quote:

An Anderson man is dead after being strangled with a vacuum cleaner hose, and his common-law wife is charged with his murder.

now, doesn't THAT suck. (pun intended)

The_Jazz · 03-31-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

now, doesn't THAT suck. (pun intended)

Shoot me. Shoot me now. Please put me out of my misery for having to put up with DK's terrible puns.

nezmot · 03-31-2006, 01:35 PM

I would be happy to allow people to carry guns, as long as they were concealed, and if they were held legally responsible for how they are used, whoever uses them. If someone breaks into a house, or car, steals a gun and subsequently uses it, the original owner should bear responsibility for any crime committed with that weapon.

That is the only way to ensure everyone takes on the full responsibility that goes along with the 'right' to own a weapon.

I don't know what laws exist regarding the transfer of ownership of weapons - I assume private sales are illegal, and that you have to trade your weapon in at the gun-store if you want to relieve yourself of a weapon, or trade up to a new one.

Quote:

Most often the best argument an anti-gun person can come up with is that it will never happen to you so you don't need to prepare yourself for it.

No, the best argument an anti gun person can come up with is to point out that increasing the general availability of weapons increases the chances that those weapons will fall into the hands of the criminal or psychotically minded.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

I would be happy to allow people to carry guns, as long as they were concealed,

now this is a tricky subject for alot of people. some states don't allow concealed but DO have open carry (wisconsin) and although open carry being legal, police still get calls from people not knowing the law and freaking out with 'man with a gun'. Personally, I say allow open carry, only criminals will bother concealing them for surprise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

and if they were held legally responsible for how they are used, whoever uses them. If someone breaks into a house, or car, steals a gun and subsequently uses it, the original owner should bear responsibility for any crime committed with that weapon.

I tend to agree with this for the most part. I think that if you are going to have more than one weapon, you should have a gun safe. not a cabinet with glass panels to make it look all pretty, but a hernia inducing metal safe with a double combination lock. THEN if you get robbed and the safe is missing or cut open, I could say you're not liable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

I don't know what laws exist regarding the transfer of ownership of weapons - I assume private sales are illegal, and that you have to trade your weapon in at the gun-store if you want to relieve yourself of a weapon, or trade up to a new one.

Depends on the state. In some states, whether you sell or give the weapon to someone, there has to be a form filled out. In others, theres only the fed form for initial buy. I don't think having to take your gun back to a dealer for a new one should happen. Just fill out a form that both of you sign so it shows you no longer own that firearm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nezmot

No, the best argument an anti gun person can come up with is to point out that increasing the general availability of weapons increases the chances that those weapons will fall into the hands of the criminal or psychotically minded.

With the current procedures we have, the main ways a single criminal gets a gun is to have friend/wife/girlfriend buy it for them. That only produces about 0.7% of the guns used in crimes though. Theft out of homes is the usual way a criminal gets a gun.

Willravel · 03-31-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

there are already laws to prevent manufacturers from making illegal gun sales, as well as preventing dealers from doing the same. Do we hold knife manufacturers liable if their knife is used in a crime? How about vacuum cleaners?

http://www.wyff4.com/news/7501397/detail.html

now, doesn't THAT suck. (pun intended)

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/.../firearms.html

Quote:

Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries.

Not sure about the statistics on knife or vaccume. Just something to consider.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/.../firearms.html

Not sure about the statistics on knife or vaccume. Just something to consider.

hemenways report is extremely questionable because he refuses to divulge his data sources or how he's compiled them.

Willravel · 03-31-2006, 01:58 PM

Why doesn't the NRA have statistics on how many firearm deaths there are per year in the US?

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Why doesn't the NRA have statistics on how many firearm deaths there are per year in the US?

don't know. I'm not a big fan of the NRA because of its compromise policy. BUT, according to the CDC, in 2001 Firearm misuse caused only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S.
For example, compared to accidental death from firearms, you are:
• Four times more likely to burn to death or drown
• 17 times more likely to be poisoned
• 19 times more likely to fall
• And 53 times more likely to die in an automobile accident

Now, this is only accidental deaths, not suicides or homicides. In my opinion, suicides shouldn't count because if someone wants to take their life, not having a gun isn't going to stop them.

When you consider that guns are used defensively about 2.5 million times a year and, according to the FBI estimates of crimes committed with firearms, Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.

Willravel · 03-31-2006, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

When you consider that guns are used defensively about 2.5 million times a year and, according to the FBI estimates of crimes committed with firearms, Guns are used 65 times more often to prevent a crime than to commit one.

2.5 million? Does that include law enforcement and military? If not, that is a VERY inflated number.

dksuddeth · 03-31-2006, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

2.5 million? Does that include law enforcement and military? If not, that is a VERY inflated number.

That does NOT include law enforcement and military. That figure is an estimate from a book “Targeting Guns”, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997

I've found his material quite informative

Willravel · 03-31-2006, 04:13 PM

I think we're moving away from the OP again, and I apologize.

I think that some people with guns have violent impulses or tendencies or even fantisies, but they are not the majority. While I am not interested in having or being around guns, I respect your right to have one. If there is a vote, well we can discuss that on a case by case basis. Not all gun owners are loons, and not all are Rambo wannabees. That being said, I do take issue with many gun owners. I think that gun owners would do well by helping to fix the multitutde of problems in the area of gun control, instead of simply focusing on their right to bear arms. I gladly defend my right to free press, but I call the press on bullshit every day, and I do what I can to fix the problem. The price for freedom is eternal vigilence. You can have freedoms, but you shoudl help to maintain them for the benifit of your fellow man.

03-31-2006, 12:12 PM	#57 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Anybody else think Congress should address the second amendment, amybe clarify it for the modern times? Settle most of this debate once and for all. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

03-31-2006, 12:37 PM	#64 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	I think the point a lot of anit-gun folks miss is that there are things in life you can't control (a out of control vehicle running you down), things you cont control much (like dying in a fire), and things you can control (your own self-defense from a person meaning to do you harm). None of the pro-gun rights folk on this board are arguing that a gun will make them safe from everything. Only that being a well-trained, prepared gun owner puts your self-defense from an attacker in your own hands, more so than not having a gun would. Everyone knows you are more likely to die in a car accident than by a bullet and no one is arguing anything different. But that is no reason to leave your life in the hands of an attacker should you ever be in that situation. Most often the best arguement an anti-gun person can come up with is that it will never happen to you so you don't need to prepare yourself for it. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

03-31-2006, 01:58 PM	#76 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Why doesn't the NRA have statistics on how many firearm deaths there are per year in the US?

03-31-2006, 04:13 PM	#80 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think we're moving away from the OP again, and I apologize. I think that some people with guns have violent impulses or tendencies or even fantisies, but they are not the majority. While I am not interested in having or being around guns, I respect your right to have one. If there is a vote, well we can discuss that on a case by case basis. Not all gun owners are loons, and not all are Rambo wannabees. That being said, I do take issue with many gun owners. I think that gun owners would do well by helping to fix the multitutde of problems in the area of gun control, instead of simply focusing on their right to bear arms. I gladly defend my right to free press, but I call the press on bullshit every day, and I do what I can to fix the problem. The price for freedom is eternal vigilence. You can have freedoms, but you shoudl help to maintain them for the benifit of your fellow man.