You're not defenseless, dk. You clearly have the will to fight should the need arise. I'm not sure we'd have the exact same definition of when the line has been crossed, but I'm certain that, should that line be crossed, you'd rise up. That's why you're not defenseless. It's the will that makes the difference, not the tool.

And anyone can make a bomb from practically anything. We don't need a Constitutional right to bear gasoline and Styrofoam or fertilizer.
I stand by my opinion, though, and I think I can make a strong case for it even to someone who has a much different opinion of guns.

[quote]there's no case that needs made. both guns fire a projectile.
your correct except for automatic weapons. I'm obviously not advocating that we should be able to own surfact to air missles, or RPG's.
I'm not part of the gun lobby. I don't support the unrestricted owning of firearms. I believe in order to obtain a firearm you should have to go through an approved traning and profficiency class.
I guess I would draw the line at explosive ordinance.

what other fundamental rights should we have training and licensing for?

Procreation.

hmmm, considering my stepkids, I might agree with you. damn you Tully, damn you.

it's about a reasonable expectation of proficiency with the weapon. I agree that owning a firearm is a fundamental right, but it's not unlimited, nor should it be. A firearm, in the hands of an untrained or unstable person, is extremely dangerous. So is operating a motor vehicle. we require that people who wish to drive pass some basic safety and proficiency tests. it's not unreasonable to expect the same for owning firearms. Like it or not, there are some people who should not be allowed to own a firearm.

1) if we allow the government to force us to prove proficiency in something considered a right, the bar can be raised to unattainable levels to deprive the right.

2) comparing operating a motor vehicle to owning a firearm would indicate that you consider driving a right as well, do you?

3) there is no way to effectively prohibit someone from attaining a gun unless you incarcerate that person either in jail or a mental facility. how do you do that and still respect that persons civil rights?

[quote]there needs to be a line somewhere. I draw it at demonstrated safety and proficiency.
driving is not a right, it's a privelage. I merely used it as an example of responsibility.
obviously you can't prohibit something 100%. but there is no reason it can't be made illegal without demonstrating proficiency.

I have a CCW. I had to demonstrate proficiency to obtain it. this is not an unreasonable standard to apply to obtaining a firearm. there is no downside.

tough for car driving to be a right when cars didn't exist when the Constitution was written

Gun's don't kill people, people kill people. Take away the guns, and they will find another way to wage war with each other. Guns should be easier to obtain, not harder. The criminals will get one whenever they want, when you make it harder the only people you make it harder for is the law abiding citizens trying to protect themselves and families from these guys who can and will get guns no matter what the laws are.

Making it easier for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns would also make it easier for criminals to obtain guns. But I see your point.

I guess I'm wondering if "more guns" is the answer.

I don't know where you live, but around here a "criminal" can get a gun for 50$ on pretty much any street corner. When you go to a shop to buy a gun, there is all kinds of red tape, this is where the rules apply. The criminals aren't following any rules to begin with... so how does adding more make it harder for them? And how does making it easier for law abiding citizens make it easier for criminals? That makes no sense, these 2 groups of people do not obtain guns in the same way. Criminals can and will get guns even if they were completely outlawed, in the same way they do now, illegally. More or less restriction, they will continue to get their guns, and with more restriction less of the law abiding citizens will be in a position to protect them and theirs. So no, I have to disagree here, it's already as easy as it can be for criminals, you can't make it any easier.

Another "more guns is the answer" argument. I simply can't agree

But where are the illegal guns coming from?

---------- Post added at 12:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 AM ----------

As an aside, I always felt this phrase, and others like it, to be quite awkward. Maybe it's the editor in me.

I think it's far more cogent to state: Most people use guns to kill people.

Bullshit

Arizona has some of the most pro-gun legislation around. Law abiding citizens carrying guns didn't help.

Loughner could have caused a lot more carnage with an automatic weapon or a hand grenade. Restricting access to both does work.

The all or nothing argument defies logic. We've always had some form of weapons control. It isn't going away and has to be updated from time to time to keep up with technology.

Go figure, folks that choose not to own weapons think they have rights, too.

But that loses the original meaning: Guns are not themselves at fault; it is the people who use guns that are to blame.

(Damn. Is my grammar off?)

Hitler didn't kill people. The people who followed him killed people.

So stop demonizing Hitler.

/Godwin'd

I know...I know, I made a language joke to make a point. I understand the phrasing is meant to point out that "guns are just tools." But I guess my point is that "guns are very effective tools for killing people, which is why most people use them for that purpose."

I'm not sure where I'm going with it, but it's clear that guns are the #1 tool of choice to kill people. The success rate I think has something to do with it.


People like to use cars as an example of something other than guns that are regulated. I'm not sure I buy much of it, based on the problems posed in the Constitution. However, when we revoke licenses of drunk drivers, reckless drivers, or when we deem certain vehicles unsafe and bar them from the road, we do so not because we're blaming Cars; we do this because the driver has failed responsibility. This is why we license drivers instead of just banning all cars.

However, you're going to get drunk drivers who drive with suspended licenses. You're going to get people who will always drive recklessly. You're going to get people driving condemned cars. These, I suppose, would be "criminals."

This isn't a valid argument for getting rid of the licensing of drivers and checking the safety of their automobiles. "If you make it harder for good drivers to drive, then only bad drivers will drive." No...that seems silly. I support a reasonable system for licensing drivers, as I support a reasonable system for licensing gun owners.

But then we get back to the Constitution. The problem with the driving/gun comparison is, of course, that driving in public is a privilege and private gun ownership is a right. However, I recently read a summary description of the Second Amendment, which I will share with you:

The Second Amendment: Twenty-seven ill-chosen words, three badly placed commas, one unrivaled legislative botch-up.

As an editor/word geek, it gave me a laugh. It's kind of true. Think about it: if a legislative body, legal team, or other official body attempted to pass off something like the Second Amendment today, it would be ridiculed. I really have no idea how it got by even back at the time. It's so murky. I think what was written in it was done so with assumptions that were understood at the time that are essentially lost to us today.

It's not clear. If it were clear, there would be far less debate.

*facepalm*

Yes, it was intentional hyperbole

But the whole "guns don't kill people" meme is ridiculous. NOTHING kills people without someone using it kill people.

But the difference between a gun and say, a knife, is that the knife has multiple other uses. Guns have one purpose: harming/killing things

Yes, and sometimes that is necessary. Again, I bring your attention to:

YouTube Beating: Richmond, VA Beating Posted to YouTube - wtvr

misunderstanding the constitution again? or just being obtuse?

it's irrelevant that cars weren't invented then, it was the right to travel freely, by any means chosen be it horse or wagon.

so traveling should be completely unregulated as well?

it is a well established principle that the right to travel anywhere and anytime is fundamental. without going in to that particular discussion, it should be noted that supreme court precedent says that no state may charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the constitution.

you didn't answer my question.

and the right to travel isn't in the Constitution, though it's been established by legal rulings

that travel should be unregulated? as far as persons go, yes. but the states can regulate speed, lanes, certain safety standards of vehicles, passing lanes, etc. But the right of a person to travel freely by the conveyance of his choosing is a fundamental right, with several court cases verifying this.

I didn't say it was a constitutional right, it's a basic fundamental right. So is the right to keep and bear arms, that one just happens to be listed.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

this means that the government only has the powers assigned to it via the constitutions. all else remains to the people.

So you're against Federal "no-fly" lists, for example?

correct

Ok, haven't had time to read every post, but just throwing my two cents in on a couple things that jumped out at me.

Straw man sales-

More regulation will do ZERO to stop this. It is ALREADY illegal. Once someone is found to be doing this, the answer is to lock them away for a very long time. More felon control is needed. Not gun control. Now, if you wanted to deal with the situation, Make the straw men responsible as an accessory for every crime that can be proven to be done with a gun supplied by them. This does zero to effect the rights of honest gun owners.


Extended and high capacity mags-

There IS a reason for them. If you get woken up at night in your house by multiple intruders, which many break ins involve, you want as many rounds as you can get as quick as you can get. Having to deal with the disorientation of going from asleep to a high stress situation is hard enough without having to worry about reloading. Banning these will do nothing to stop crazies like the ass hat that shot Giffords. If you take 5 minutes a day to practice a reload, you will find it takes very little time to swap out mags, as in a few seconds. I'm a second rate shooter at best and I can can do a decent quick reload. Any crazy fuck intent on killing people can and will work around mag capacity. And there is no faster reload then a second gun. Deciding on an arbitrary number of rounds with the argument "you don't need more then that" is bullshit. We don't need a car that goes faster then 75 miles an hour either, but go ahead and try to limit that.

Background checks-

There is a system involved, and while FFL dealers do have to file a good amount of paper work, it it based off of SSN numbers. They get your info, make a phone call, and get a yay or nay. If the sheriffs office out here had bothered to make sure that Loughner's drug arrests had been put on record, then he would have been turned down. However, loop holes in the system allowed him to get the SEVERAL run ins with the law "removed" from his record, and allowed him to LIE on his application and get away with it. Again, stricter FELON control would have prevented this situation. Not stricter gun control.

FFL dealers not doing background checks-

Revoke there FFL, fine the living shit out of them, and lock them up. No further gun control needed.

Now, there were a few things on the gun control side I don't have a problem with. Making sales at a gun show require a background check doesn't bug me. People are going there with the intent of making a few bucks, and making sure they don't sell them to someone who shouldn't have a gun is ok in my book. HOWEVER, that should NOT apply to private sales and transfers outside of a gun show. I have a lot of gun buddies. Suppose I want to sell a gun to one of them, or give it to a family member as a gift. That is my business, and any attempt to interfere with that is government overstepping it's bounds.

If ever a gun control law was introduced that was actually effective at keeping guns out of the hands of felons without stepping all over the rights of law abiding citizens, I would vote for it. However, almost every law out there does nothing but hinder honest men and women from being able to protect themselves.



Ok, I feel better now that that is out of my system. Carry on folks. :)

anyone have a stat on how many home invasions are thwarted each year by homeowners with firearms?

if so, what is that number as a % of total gun owners/firearms owned?

Derwood,

The most common statistic is that "over two million" crimes are prevented each year due to defensive firearms. I'm not providing any evidence to this, you can take the words for what they are worth.

that number comes from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995

there are lots of stats, info, and myth busting at gunfacts.info

dk-

I'll save them the trouble: "That's just a right-wing rag."