The issues of guns and gun control go so far back it is ridiculous.

I still say owning a hunting rifle or shotgun or a handgun for protection is fine and should never be a problem. But there are no sane reasons whatsoever to own automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

I'm sorry, a line does need to be drawn and while the NRA has some good points, they have also become too power hungry and blinded by that power to see what truly is good for the nation. How they can support anyone owning anything that is more powerful than the local police department has is ridiculous.

There is no reason for anyone who is a law abiding citizen to own an assault or semi-automatic weapon of any sort (except maybe a 9mm or less handgun ).

Watch the movie Tombstone, how the brothers Earp put out notice that guns in the city were outlawed. There was a huge outcry and that part of the movie was very factual.

I don't buy the idea that the 2nd amendment is ambiguous. It is a 2 part sentence. Part one is the reason for the amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," <--- that's -why-. Part 2 says "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's not ambiguous at all. It doesn't say the right of the militia or the right of the state, or the right of the managment of the local Dairy Queen, it says the right of the PEOPLE, as in We, the People. The populace, the average guy on the street.

The founders, being revolutionaries themselves, realized that a people could only be oppressed by their government if they did not have the means to defend themselves. These people led an armed revolt against English rule. They were determined that ultimate authority in the representative republic that they created should rest with the people, not government.

The US Constitution, particularly in this instance the Bill of Rights, does not protect the rights of the government. It protects individual rights -against- government intrusion. The government does not have the right to free speech and press and practice of religion, you do. The government does not have the right to vote, you do.

"The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," (Am IV) does not apply to a government organized special group of people, it applies to all.

Amendment V: "No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against HIMSELF, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall PRIVATE PROPERTY be taken for public use, without just compensation.

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

and X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the PEOPLE.

The Bill of Rights protects -individual- rights. When it says "The People", it -means- "The People". Websters, entry 5, the most applicable definition in my opinion: "The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: “those who fear and distrust the PEOPLE, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes” (Thomas Jefferson)."

Note the use of a quote of one of the founders as an example of the definition.

The second amendment could not be more clear. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only argument is between those who believe in individual rights, and those who would see them subordinated to the whims of the Nanny State, who should care for us mindless peasants who obviously are not capable of thinking for ourselves, from cradle to grave.

The kind of thinking that places a government in complete control of your security and well-being is an invitation to be enslaved. The founders meant us to take care of ourselves, and be wary of a government that would take care of us, for "our own good". The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed. The abuse of that right (to commit robberies, assaults, and murders) should be met with swift, sure, and severe consequences. -That- would be the proper "gun control". A gun is a -tool-. The problem is the one wielding it. Prosecute and punish those who commit crimes using weapons, instead of persecuting law-abiding citizens who chose to excercise their rights under the Second Amendment.

That's a well written, passionate argument, but the amendments are not absolute. Freedom of speech is not absolute. The classic example of this is that you cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Also, libel is a form of speech that is not covered by free speech. Also slander. But, we have a guiding principle in this country that, unless there is a good reason otherwise, speech should be free.

The 2nd amendment works the same way. There are a ton of restrictions on weapon ownership that people accept. I doubt that anyone wants personal ownership of nuclear weapons, howitzers, RPG's, or fuel-air bombs to be unrestricted. Most people are for reasonable background checks. Many people are for reasonable rules on gun safety classes. Most people are for restriction on weapon purchases by convicted felons.

So, I'm really not sure what point you are arguing, but you did do a good job of saying it passionately.

Mere stats don't answer the question of what gun policy leads to the safest society.

America has very liberal (as in open/lax) gun policies, yet we have obviously pretty heavy crime problems, not to mention a prison population off the scale.

Britain has seen rising crime while toughening gun laws.

Most of Europe has pretty good crime rates and pretty tight gun control.

So which combination do we say represents the 'formula'?

BlueMan:

I'm not sure how you took it, but I just want to go on the record as saying I personally believe the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to own firearms... at least, it does today. However, I can *also* read that amendment as "A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, therefore the people may maintain one." I never said I thought the National Guard was a militia. In the sense that I *can* see the Amendment, a militia is a privately controlled, as in controlled by the "PEOPLE" you kept mentioning, entity.

Also, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is undefined. The "Founding Fathers," as we are so fond of calling them, never said "keep guns." They said "keep arms." If you take the Second Amendment as concrete, as you said you do, then technically, I'm allowed to have a nuclear warhead. I'm allowed to develop chemical and biological weapons. I'm allowed to "keep and bear" my hyrdogen bomb while I'm walking down the street, in front of your house.

But obviously this is complete shit. If you agree that any limitations can be set on "arms" ownership, then you CANNOT assert that the Second Amendment is absolutely clear. The Constitution, and any subsequent amendments, were specifically written as NOT to be clear, so they can apply to situations in the future. If the Second Amendment had said "You can carry a muzzle loading rifle with you at any time," we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? Instead, it is ambigous, so that we may.

That is all.

Yes.

Sadly enough, there are too many people that don't.

I could not agree more with this.You seem to have to have your terms confused here. You state that a hunting rifle, shotgun, or handgun is OK with you, yet semi-automatic or automatic is not. The fact is, most handguns, as well as many rifles and shotguns, are semi-automatic.

Good point, hopefully it did not affect what I was trying to say too much. I am not a big gun enthusiast. No pun intended. I can see maybe owning a .45 or a Glock 9MM but that's about it. I had a friend who had an arsenal and we went to a range in N.Mexico about 12 years ago. It was fun but, not me.

Criminals are NEVER deterred by the prospect of their victims possibly being armed. All it does it encourage them to arm themselves in an even more deadly way.

Gun crime increased in the UK after the gun control laws were passed? Hardly surprising when you consider that merely being in possession of a firearm was then classified as a gun crime and that it was an issue that was much more seriously and doggedly policed than before.

Robberies increased? So what? Robbers are not deterred by the prospect of the owners of the house they are robbing being armed. Hell, most robbers do their utmost to make sure that no-one is there to disturb them when they go about their robbing, so whether that no-one is armed or not doeso't affect their actions in the slightest. The truth of the matter is that those statistics reflect a period of time when the economy was going into recession and drug abuse was on the increase.

The amount of muggings increased? See above. The fact that carrying a concealed weapon in public was always illegal means that the gun control laws had no bearing on this statistic anyway.

Firearms murders increased? True, but did the writers of the above article even bother to explain why? Of course not, it would detract from their argument. The amount of gang related violence has been on the increase for a while now. Personally, I have nothing against gang members killing each other - they're welcome to it. The incidences of firearm related domestic violence has plummetted though. And, of course, the Dunblane incident has not been repeated since.

To be quite honest, statistics can always be manipulated any way you want them, as the writers of the original article have obviously done in order to suit their argument. And shame on them for doing so.

During the term of a Rebulican named Nixon, the courts clarified this to mean the national guard as the modern militia.
Having said that, no one is going to come take your hunting rifle. Probably not your handgun either.

However, as a gun owner myself, I feel a need to point out two things if the Brady Bill is being mentioned.

1) A handgun has NO other purpose than to kill a fellow human. So by proxy if you purchase a handgun it is implicite that you are purchasing it with the thought that you may one day use it to take the life of a fellow human being.

2) I cannot fathom any reason on the planet that anyone not charged with defending or protecting has any reason to be in possesion of any gun that will fire at full auto. Unless you have some plans for goverment overthrowing or are a paranoid schizo who believes the commies are coming, I cannot see a valid explanation as to why such a weapon is needed.

The 2nd gives you the right to bear arms, nowhere does it say you have a right to every weapon is existance or the most violent ones.

Violent crime stats from every state that has passed a "shall-issue" CCW law would disagree with you. It is a general deterrant, at least in the US.

Again, stats are easily manipulated. There are numerous studies which show the opposite. For every Lott and Mustard, there's a Webster and Lambert.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MooseMan3000
BlueMan:

I'm not sure how you took it, but I just want to go on the record as saying I personally believe the Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to own firearms... at least, it does today. However, I can *also* read that amendment as "A well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, therefore the people may maintain one." I never said I thought the National Guard was a militia. In the sense that I *can* see the Amendment, a militia is a privately controlled, as in controlled by the "PEOPLE" you kept mentioning, entity.

First, I want to make clear I wasn't taking any personal shots at you. I just don't buy into that argument. Taken as a whole, every amendment in the Bill of Rights protects indidvidual rights, and every time "the people" is mentioned, it means "the people", not the state, or the militia, or any other body. It's the same "people" as is used in "We, The People of the United States of America". Unfortunately, some people throw out context in favor of making a definition fit their preferences. The Second Amendment taken in context with the entirety of the document protects an individual right.

Also, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is undefined. The "Founding Fathers," as we are so fond of calling them, never said "keep guns." They said "keep arms."

Which is defined as "Instruments or weapons of offense or defense", i.e. guns are not the only definition, but they are included in the definition. This definition also extends to knives, etc.

If you take the Second Amendment as concrete, as you said you do, then technically, I'm allowed to have a nuclear warhead. I'm allowed to develop chemical and biological weapons. I'm allowed to "keep and bear" my hyrdogen bomb while I'm walking down the street, in front of your house.

The part I take as "concrete" is the assertion that it is an individual right, and not the right of a nebulous "militia".
Which, even if you go that way, a militia is the citizenry who are capable of bearing arms, so either way, it's not meant as a right of government. You'll note in my earlier arguments that I stated that I -could- agree with an interpretation that it was meant to designate personal arms, i.e. rifles and other small arms. Nuclear weapons, the absurd extreme of this argument, are on a whole other level of weaponry that should be tightly controlled for very valid reasons. No reasonable person would argue that individuals should have a nuclear bomb in their possesion. That argument is hyperbole usually used to take discussions such as this completely off point.

But obviously this is complete shit. If you agree that any limitations can be set on "arms" ownership, then you CANNOT assert that the Second Amendment is absolutely clear.

You missed my point. What I state is clear is that the 2nd guarantees an -individual- right, and I stand by that argument for the reasons I have articulated before, that you cannot show me in context of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where "the people" refers to anything other than the body of individual citizens. When the language of the document means the state, it says, "the state", when it means the Congress, it says "The Congress", when it means "the people", it -says- "the people". Other "interpretations" are deliberate twisting of words to try to slam the round peg of the Constitution into the square hole of the anti-gun crowd's bias.

The Constitution, and any subsequent amendments, were specifically written as NOT to be clear, so they can apply to situations in the future.

I don't believe it is written to be vague. It -is- written in a formal type of English that very few people seem to completely comprehend anymore, but the people that wrote it did so with the stated intent to limit the powers of the federal government and reserve authority to the states and to the people. They did not want a strong central government. They didn't want wiggle room. The Bill of Rights was intended as a clarification of things they did not specificially address in the Constitution. The amendments are written as brief, to the point sentences. They say what they say. If you want to change what they say, they left you a mechanism for that in the amendment process. As it is, the Constitution has been stretched and tortured to the point that the Fed is -far- more powerful than the Founders ever intended.

I appreciate your response, and respect your opinions, I simply disagree, so thanks for the reasoned reply.

Probably getting off topic a bit here but:
Fully automatic weapons are regulated by the ATF, the Firearms act of 1934, and the IRS. This act privides for people to own fully automatic weapons and other destructive devices. Linky

I'm not going to get into those laws specifically because they have been addressed other places on the forums.

But no where does it deny you the right to every weapon in existance. It says "keep and bear arms", nowhere does it define those arms. And before you can turn it against me, yes I know that the "arms" the framers were speaing of were single shot muskets.

So, all discussions of statistics aside, can someone give me a logical argument as to why it is that simply because criminals (those who disregard/disobey the law) are comitting crimes using guns, that the logical solution is to pass a law, which they will ignore anyway, that will disarm their potential victims, who would abide by the law?

Laws restricting gun ownership do nothing to affect those who are already disobeying the laws. All it accomplishes is reducing the ability of the law-abiding to defend themselves. I would offer instead that laws against the -illegal use- of firearms would be more effective, but of course only if they are strongly enforced.

If you reduce the number of firearms in circulation, you reduce the amount of firearms that are able to be used for crimes. Where do you think most of the guns used in crimes come from? At one point they were legally owned by someone. If you make it impossible for people to legally own one, where are the criminals going to get them from?

Apart from that, some studies of the CCW law shows that those being issued with licences are also the ones committing the crimes. All criminals have to begin being criminals somewhere. Someone who's never been arrested for anything in his life can easily go and buy a gun (and when I say 'never arrested,' that covers people who have not yet committed a crime and those who have never been CAUGHT committing a crime).

Laws reducing gun ownership do EVERYTHING to affect those who are disobeying the laws. All you have to do is look at Europe to see that. Of course, there are always going to be criminals who find ways of getting guns, but their numbers are vastly reduced. Vastly. And the chance that they will actually use them on unarmed civilians is also reduced.

If you make it impossible to legally own one, all you do is suddenly make a large number of law abiding citizens into criminals. Guns exist, the technology is here, the genie will not go back in the bottle. If they are made illegal, they will be obtained the same way that drugs are now, and alcohol was under prohibition, they will be traded on a black market. Keeping it legal and somewhat regulated is far preferable to creating more black markets.

And I'm sure a lot of studies show that some of those that are issued operators liscences are the ones running from police and driving under the influence, but we don't make cars illegal. A 3500 pound car is every bit as deadly as a gun in the wrong hands.

Gun crimes (not illegal gun ownership, but crimes committed -with a gun-) have been shown to increase in jurisdictions where strict gun control is implemented, it has been shown again and again that in jurisdictions with "shall issue" CCW laws that violent crimes are reduced. Not knowing if your next victim is going to be the one that caps you WILL give a criminal pause. Yes, they move on to softer targets, like property crimes, but I'd prefer they steal your car rather than kill you. Again, making gun ownership illegal does not solve the problem. What should be enforced is strict laws severely punishing those who use a weapon to commit a crime. Punish the criminals, not the law abiding, responsible gun owners. We as a society have developed a frightening tendency to punish everyone -except- the person who caused the problem.

OMG, I can't deal with another gun argument.

If your main hotbutton is guns, then vote on it. I just think it's kind of shortsighted to vote based on one issue. Then again, if guns are super-important to you, you've got a fair chance of being in line with the rest of the right-wing platform.

You'll notice that I've been silent so far...

The genie does go back into the bottle. If you don't think that strict gun control will be effective, then look at Europe. I am not making an hypothetical argument here.

Quote:

And I'm sure a lot of studies show that some of those that are issued operators liscences are the ones running from police and driving under the influence, but we don't make cars illegal. A 3500 pound car is every bit as deadly as a gun in the wrong hands.

In the right hands though, a car has many other functional purposes. A gun in the right hands, however, is still only used for the purpose of injuring or killing.

Quote:

Gun crimes (not illegal gun ownership, but crimes committed -with a gun-) have been shown to increase in jurisdictions where strict gun control is implemented, it has been shown again and again that in jurisdictions with "shall issue" CCW laws that violent crimes are reduced. Not knowing if your next victim is going to be the one that caps you WILL give a criminal pause. Yes, they move on to softer targets, like property crimes, but I'd prefer they steal your car rather than kill you. Again, making gun ownership illegal does not solve the problem. What should be enforced is strict laws severely punishing those who use a weapon to commit a crime. Punish the criminals, not the law abiding, responsible gun owners. We as a society have developed a frightening tendency to punish everyone -except- the person who caused the problem.

I go back to my point about stats. From what I have seen, there is one study that backs up what you're saying, while there are numerous other ones that aggressively contradict it. Thinking that his victim may be armed will give a criminal pause, but only long enough to go and get a bigger gun.

The more guns you have in circulation, the more guns there are available for criminals to use.

Strict laws are also not a deterrant and never have been. Personally, I'd rather stop the problem at source than punish after the act.

But not this late in the game. firearms have been around for more than 200 years, and in a country that was partially founded because people had guns and then were allowed to keep them, I see no way to cork the genie in the bottle.

So no one ever goes target shooting or competition shooting?

Wrong. It's not the size of the gun, it's how well you use it. Ask any knowledgeable police officer and they will tell you they would rather be shot with a 9mm than a .22 cal. It's the fear of getting shot themselves that stops them.

By the same argument, there are also more guns for law abiding citizens to use to defend themselves.

Stop the problem at the source eh? Lets look at this. If law abiding citizens can't buy guns then manufacturers will have to cut back production. Not only gun manufacturers but ammunition manufacturers as well. Cutting back production will casue them to not need as many employees. People get laid off. Now not only will they not need as many people to make what they can't sell, they won't be making as much in profits....more job cuts and more unemployed people. That makes much more sense considering our current state of "economic turmoil".

Out of curisoity, tell me your single most important logical reason for wanting to ban firearms from law abiding citizens.

I always love these gun debate issues. It always breaks down into some lame statistics war or debate about how gun ownership helps personal protection or protects personal liberties. (I not say anything against these arguments, just that they are always the same ones used) What I would love to see is some serious talk about conversation about how to solve the problem of crime rather than just blaming guns (or lack there of) for being the issue. Personally I am with Chris Rock on this on, just make bullets cost about 5,000 each and the problem would be solved. If your willing to put 100,000 dollars worth of bullets into a guy then he probably deserved to die. And if your willing to spend 5,000 to kill a deer then I guarentee you wont be missing too often (thereby eliminating the need for semi-automatic rifles, which if you think about it, the only reason any hunter would actual need one of these things is because he is a bad shot ... lol which I could tell you plenty of hunting stories about ... oh did I mention that I own guns? ex member of the NRA?) The great thing about this post, and well this board in particular, is that it has given me yet another great idea for a paper topic. What would I do without the TFP to stimulate my creative juices?

AHHH damnit Jim! had to go and split the post right as I was posting this too .... sigh

The problem with this solution is:

1) Who is the we who are going to go about price fixing the ammunition?

2)What about the economy after we do this?

3)What about military spending and defense, after all the military uses the same type of rounds as other people?

As to why use a semi-automatic while hunting....multiple targets...need more than one shot for take down.....large game....bad shot

I find most pro gun control opinions too flimsy.

How about we agree to disagree this point up front. I find must gun control opinions to flimsy....lets debate tham and see what common ground we can find.

Like what MrSefDestruct says its pretty contradictory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but I also find truth with

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
but you gotta be kidding me when someone says

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and you really got to be kidding me when someone says

What about the people who just want to shoot at paper targets.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is also totally true

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About assualt weapons. Why do people believe that assualt wepons are like these mega powered death machines? I dont really get how so many people are scared and say that if the AWB sunsets full auto ak's and uzi's are going to flood the streets. They are illegal anyway.

The people who do legally have automatic weapons are pretty responsible if you ask me. Well on the other hand I have heard some time ago a police officer who stole a lot of drug money to buy a M2 .50cal machine gun to "combat terrorism".

If you get a grenade launcher when the AWB expires it is still illegal to get grenades. I have never ever heard of a criminal using a bayonet. Supressors and silencers that go on threading are not legal in many states anyway. Flash supressors dont make a gun better. Pistol grips on rifles seem weird. Dont all pistols have pistol grips? Most of the AWB stuff seems cosmetic.

For assualt pistols how does having the magazine outside of the grip make it dangerous? Having a barrel shroud so you can hold a pistol with both hands seems kind of odd. If you want to hold something with both hands wouldn't you go for a carbine or rifle or anything with a stock?

I like to compare most of the AWB stuff to ricers. Putting a body kit on your car, putting a grape fruit launcher muffler on, stickers, a negative hood, spinners and chrome, and no putting fire decals will not make any of a difference much like a lot of the AWB.

"Having a semi auto version of a full auto gun" I think most manufacturers have changed the names and cosmetics of their guns to get around this.

On the other hand I dont know what to feel about the 10 round magazine limit. I think both sides of the argument have merit. 10 is such an arbitrary number. I don't think there was ever a study that proved that any magazine bigger than holds more than 10 will cause more crime. On the other hand many people are scared. You shouldnt have to fear anything. But again those people also say you don't "need" 20 round magazines. I think this part is an argument between "need" and "want" you can argue about it forever actually the entire thing about gun control has just about been argued about for just about forever..

On the other hand the my only problem about the gunshow loop hole is that I dont think 18 year olds need to have firearms. I think 21+ is pretty good.

Just to let you know I dont really care much about guns its just that I think politicians need to step away from guns= automatically bad. Every single time I hear about some kid being shot or a police officer or anyperson I am concerned and feel sad that it has happened and feel for their families. But I think we need to strive together for a more meaningful way to make this country better.

Im getting tired writing. I'm probably never ever going to get a firearm to tell you the truth. I live in a safe place near Seattle so I dont feel any danger at all. You know what Instead of a firearm I'll just go for a bb gun or match air gun and plink at some cans.

Oh can anyone direct me to an official government site that has the entire AWB bill written down?

Government site contianing the AWB bill, expiring in just over 3.5 months.:thumbsup:
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993

That's absurd. The idea that the people could stop an oppressive government was fine when armies mainly had muskets and rifles that were pretty much identical to what the peasants had.

YOU, however can at best get an M16 or two, and that's very iffy. More likely you can only get hold of a shotgun/rifle/handgun/AK47 at best. The military on the other hand has tanks, missiles, and the stealth bomber.

In the old days, too, militaries were trained to wear bright red clothes and march side by side standing as tall as they could be. In short, they were taught to do everything in their power to get their asses shot. Today, we have a large military with incredibly effective training. You, if you're lucky, have a firearms instructor at the local range. Most people's training consists of shooting at tin cans and deer. Point 2 for the military.I really don't think the people can do a whole lot to stop the military at this point. Anyone who thinks they can has been watching too many movies.



A logical fallacy. What of the many people who buy handguns so that they can use them for target shooting - for fun? What of the hunters who buy them so they can finish off the deer after it's downed by their rifle?

I think that's a very important point you brought up. One of the ways used to interpret constitutional law is "intent of the framers," or, what did the framers mean for this passage to do? In this case, they clearly were not thinking of most of the guns owned by citizens today. What implications does that have for the 2nd?

Then you don't understand the function of the infantry.


One German officer to another in a French cafe, "So, who won the air war?"

Yeah thats so true. Our founding rathers could never have imagined how guns would evolve. I forgot what is was but our founding fathers put something in the constitution so the government had the power to make laws of things that the originals never could have imagined. I dont know exactly how to say it. Sorry for my bad english.

Um, yes, actually I do. And I'm also realistic enough to know that a few mountain men huddled in their cabins pointing AK-47's out the window are not going to be enough to defeat even a modestly sized force of Army infantry.

And I'm further realistic enough to know that, assuming that somehow these mountain men develop super warfare abilities overnight in between rounds of Coors and manage to defeat the infantry, that the military will then bring this neat thing called artillery into the picture and wipe our heroic freedom fighters off the face of the earth.

And if the artillery gets defeated (and I'd LOVE for you to tell me how that will happen) then the military has airplanes which can drop bombs and vaporize these people whom you apparantly believe can defeat the entire might of the US military simply because of two sentences in a 200 year old document.


I'm not saying ban guns. I'm saying anyone who uses the "don't ban guns because only through letting people have deer rifles can we defeat an oppressive government" is barking up the wrong tree. No one with even a slight sense of reality would believe that scenario is remotely possible.

All I'm saying is you should find PLAUSIBLE arguments for why the people should be allowed to have weapons.

There is a laundry list of populations who have resisted major armies using little more than small arms and homemade explosives. Our experiences in Vietnam and now Iraq should serve as evidence that a government can not simply rule a people through sheer brute force.

There is no compelling reason to maintain a right to bear arms at the present other than that there may be a need in the future. That is exactly why it was enumerated second only to free speech as a fundamental right of the citizen. It is ironic that the same people in this country who are presently so paranoid about government overeaching its authority are the same people who want to take away the last resort to oppose it.


"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." -Adolph Hitler 1938

Sigh ... I had hoped that when I mentioned that I was siding with Chris Rock people would realize that I was being sarcastic. Obviously this is not the answer to the problem, just as limiting access to guns for law abiding citizens will not significantly bring down crime statistics. What we have at issue here is a real non-issue. It, like most things debated in American politics, is simply a diversion tactic by our “wonderful” two party system to keep people away from the real topics that need to be discussed, like how to lower poverty levels so that less people will become desperate enough to turn to a life of crime. Have your guns or don’t. Personally I don’t think it will make a big difference one way or the other. Just spare me the lame assed arguments from both sides for why your side is more “right”.

No, obviously you don't.

A "few guys" with some AK47's would not be effective, but tens of thousands of gun owners running guerilla operations and taking over national armory depot's along with defecting soldiers would.

Look, I really don't care if you believe me or not, but every military person will tell you the same: it's the grunt with the rifle that ultimately wins or loses a war (as the Soviets found out in Afghanistan).

I agree and disagree at the same time ... and here is why. If it became bad enough that "tens of thousands of gun owners" would be running around fitting our government then basically what you are talking about is a civil war, or at least a rebellion. Now, for this to be successful your rebellion would have to have (near) majority support of the population or it really isnt a rebellion not is it? More like a military overthrough of the government which (usually) results in some form of military dictatorship. Now, looking at American history three events come to mind that lead me to believe that this will not be successful. 1st Shays Rebellion. Then President George Washington had no problem leading American troops up to MA to squash this rebellion thereby forever sealing the fate of any minority armed rebellion in the US. 2nd, Civil War. So we finally get a near majority that are sick and tired of the government, and so half the freaking country desides to rebel. Didn't work then, wouldn't work now. 3rd, Right to Vote. Thats right we have the right to bloodless revolution. If a majority of the people get sick and fed up with the way the government is operating in this country they can go to the voting both and vote them out. And if they are lacking a majorty and are willing to fight to change things, the odds are against them in a war anyway. Last thought on this one, if it ever did become so bad as to warrent an armed revolution, most if not all of the military would side with the American people because, 1st they are all some of the most patriotic people this country has to offer, and 2nd, because of this they are sworn to uphold the Constitution before anything else so if it came time for the rubber to hit the road, most of them would be first in line to take out such an oppresive government.

Exactly what we are talking about!

During the American Revolution, 1/3 of the populace supported the Revolution, 1/3 supported the Crown and 1/3 was more or less neutral.

[/quote]More like a military overthrough of the government which (usually) results in some form of military dictatorship.[/quote]

That is one VERY good reason for the second; it makes a military coup less likely to succeed.

The Civil war was as close as we came to that and it was fought mostly with...rifles.

I agree that is is preferable.

But what if you had your right to vote taken away?

You are getting the picture.

But no more, I see. Fight it! Stay out of the fray.

I really really really tried, honestly!!!

No, they aren't illegal. They are heavily regulated unger the National Firearms Act of 1934.

No it isn't. Grenade launchers are 40mm. Anything 40mm and over requires a Destructive Device permit that you can apply for and get. Sorry, I don't know all the details about this one. What you typically see at gun shows and stuff are 37mm flare launchers and bird bombs. These are perfectly legal.

Again, these are regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

The difference is a rifle with a pistol grip becomes easier to shoot and control from the hip than one without. And you are correct, most of the AWB stuff is cosmetic. That's why manufacturers changed the cosmetics and still sell the same guns. Without doing research, they picked guns that "looked" dangerous and scary.

Pistols with the magazine outside of the grip means more bullets. A barrle shroud means you can help control recoil better and stay on target easier. Handguns are easier to conceal than rifles, that's why the are used more in crimes.

Doesn't matter where you get the gun, you have to be 18 to own a handgun. Responsible gun sellers will check this.

True I should have worded it differently. With the laws and restrictions full auto machine guns are not going to "flood the streets"

I dont know that much either about it so dont know how to argue. I cant find any legit reason in my head to own a launcher.

They may still not be legal depending on the state, right? Or does the special permit override that.

I don't think they add any effectiveness.

Cant anything with a detchable magazine have the capability to accept larger magazine? On another point Im not sure if this applies to assualt pistols but assualt weapons are used in very few crimes. I concede on the point that a pistol is more likey to be used by a criminal.


I concede.

A major problem with firearms is the stigma that is attached to them. In reality knives, pistols, rifles, machine guns, flamethrowers, missile launchers, and every other weapon ever devised is an inert piece of metal and other materials. Weapons are only deadly when used.

A lot of the fear surrounding firearms is abolished when you actually learn to use them. Many people who have initially been afraid of shooting pistols have found them to be a fun and exciting hobby; one of the women I took my handgun safety course with turned around and had her husband buy her a pistol that same day.

All of the statistics and arguments boil down to one very simple fact; some people are comfortable with firearms, while others aren't. If everyone spent the time to properly learn about the use of firearms this debate would be much less voracious.

To those who say guns should be banned; have you ever fired a firearm? Did you take a safety course? If not, why are you formulating opinions without all of the information you can have?

Yes, guns kill people. So do cars, knives, and balloons. But like the latter objects described, the majority of firearms owned by civilians will never be used to kill a person. The possibility of wrongdoing should not be a justification for eliminating a freedom.

Reason to own a launcher - to launch grenades :lol:
Seriously thought I agree, I'm not sure why anyone would need this.


Not sure about this, but I don't think the state wins out on this deal since it is federally regulated. That would be like the feds saying Marajuana is illegal but lets say California saying, yeah but not here...oh wait..bad example. :)

Yes, hence the 10 round limit on magazines now.

One of the failures of the AWB. After the 4 year review, crime stats really hadn't changed much because people weren't using the assault weapons on the list to begin with.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103454,00.html

For anyone interested, check out this thread to see what it takes to get a full auto gun.

I know up front its probably going to cost more than $10,000 most likely $15,000 and depending on the machinegun maybe more than $20,000.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lebell
[B] No, obviously you don't.

A "few guys" with some AK47's would not be effective, but tens of thousands of gun owners running guerilla operations and taking over national armory depot's along with defecting soldiers would.

yup. You've been watching too many movies.

Where will you get these tens of thousands of gun owners? Sure, I don't deny that tens of thousands of people own guns, but I will argue that not all of them will participate in whatever movement you're fantasizing about, and of those that do, certainly not all of them will be trained.

Then, where do they get their supplies? An army needs ammo, fuel, food, and water for starters. Of course, assuming a full-scale rebellion as you are describing, the supply lines of these and other resources necessary for the survival of an army (in this case your citizen uprising) will quickly be cut - using airstrikes if necessary.

After that, where do they get trained? Remember that viet-nam was stupidly fought by the US. We'd take a hill, then wander off until the enemy showed up again, then take the hill again. We also insisted on using conventional military tactics on a non-conventional military. This won't happen if your supposed rebellion comes to pass. Your rebels will be going up against the best-trained, best-equipped fighting force the world has ever seen. They will not be able to stand up to the military. The ONLY way a successful rebellion can be fought is if the military revolts against the government - and then the issue of citizens having guns is rather moot isn't it?

The insurgents in Iraq seem to be doing quite well.

Whether or not X citizens would be able to rebel against Y soldiers is moot; their hypothetical effectiveness plays no part in determining whether or not Americans should own firearms. The Bill of Rights specifically indicates that American citizens should be allowed to arm themselves, because that is one of the necessary freedoms our forefathers determined America requires. When you restrict the ability of your citizens to defend themselves from any threats, percieved or real, you take away a fundamental freedom and open the door to further abuses.

The insurgents in Iraq have been in warfare for decades. The insurgents in Iraq are also made up in part of people who are coming into the country from elsewhere -people who HAVE had intensive combat training in training camps. There aren't groups like that in the US.

And you should be careful using the phrase "specifically indicates" and the 2nd amendment. If it were so specific, we wouldn't still be arguing about what it means 200 years after it was written. If it specifically said what you say it said, it would say "No American will be forbidden to own weapons." It wouldn't have ANY qualifiers (security of a free state line) in it whatsoever.

Why is that qualifier there? IMHO it's there because the framers did not mean "everyone can have a gun and do whatever he feels like with it. No one needs to learn how to use it or be taught to use it responsibly." The framers meant "you know, this is a radically new system of government and some assholes probably aren't going to like it very much. We'd better be ready to defeat them if we want this thing to succeed. Maybe everyone should be allowed to join a militia and be given guns so that we have a fighting chance."

Odd, I seem to recall there being a great number of militia groups in America training for specifically this purpose. And I have no doubt that we would see foreigners on our land in the same way that Iraq has foreign insurgents.

Quote:

And you should be careful using the phrase "specifically indicates" and the 2nd amendment. If it were so specific, we wouldn't still be arguing about what it means 200 years after it was written. If it specifically said what you say it said, it would say "No American will be forbidden to own weapons." It wouldn't have ANY qualifiers (security of a free state line) in it whatsoever.

I disagree. To me, the 2nd Amendment is quite clear that Americans should be allowed to arm themselves. Obviously you disagree with me, which is fine.

As I see it that isn't a qualifier, that's a justification for letting individual citizens bear arms.

Why shouldn't individual citizens be allowed to arm themselves?

Glad to hear it. You show me the one that has fighters, bombers, tanks, howitzers, and rockets and I'll shut up.

Otherwise, I stand by my opinion that you've been watching too many movies. A militia armed with what amounts to pop-guns compared to the military's weaponry is NOT going to be successful against the military.

You never answered my question. Why shouldn't individual citizens be allowed to arm themselves?

Sorry. I forgot about that question while replying to the rest of your post ;)

I don't have a problem with individual citizens arming themselves. I myself am never without my folding knife, and my house is a friggin' arsenal of bladed weaponry (years of martial arts makes you collect crap like that). I have no problem with people arming themselves, so I can't really say why they shouldn't be allowed to, because I think they should.

All I'm objecting to in this thread is the fact that SO many arms advocates use the "we have to be able to arm ourselves in order to allow us to stop the government from oppressing us." I think that's a bullshit argument. It's a next-to-impossible scenario that the citizenship COULD overcome the government and its military. And since I belive in the idea that bullshit arguments weaken your position, I don't think that should be one of the arguments made.

It'd be much better if people were honest about why they want guns. Don't make it a paranoid "the government's out to get us" scenario. Just say you want it to protect yourself from criminals, or you want a gun because you think target shooting is fun, or you just like guns and want one.

I also object to the idea that the 2nd "clearly" states that we have the right to bear arms. It doesn't. If it were that clear, the debate over it wouldn't have raged for decades. I mean, no one's unclear about the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press are they? It doesn't qualify that guarantee. It just plain guarantees freedom of the press (and other things). The 2nd on the other hand qualifies its guarantee. Obviously there's a reason for that qualification. I think the 2nd clearly says that the U.S. government can't try to disarm "well organized militias."

That being said, it's also important to remember that just because the constitution fails to guarantee a right does not mean that right does not exist. We have the right to surf the internet, eat red meat, and leave the toilet seat up, but there's no mention of those rights in the constitution.



As an aside, I also think that even if the 2nd is proven not to guarantee individual rights to guns, it would be stupid to outlaw them. At this point there are simply too many guns in society. If all the law abiding citizens turned in their guns when it became illegal, then only the criminals would be armed, which would be a problem. If anything, we need to have societal reform to the point where people find violence to be abhorrent and don't want guns. That of course is many years off, but there is no "right now" solution to the weapons problems in this country.

Just responding to the thread title here:

Yeah man, I love my guns.

Well shakran, looks like we agree. I feel the "we need to protect ourselves from our country" argument is pretty poor as well, and it's one of the reasons I don't use it. I prefer the argument that citizens should not be denied a freedom unless there is a valid reason not to, and no valid reason has been provided to remove the right for individuals to bear arms.

So we agree. Huzzah.

I'm purchasing a hand gun.

My only motivation is that liberals want to make it against the law.

That's all the incentive I need.

I want to point out that because the constitution doesn't guarantee these rights means that they aren't rights, they're privileges. Say, for instance, if a radical vegetarian administration was voted into office (and they had enough support from the people) they could outlaw eating red meat and there's nothing the constitution would do to protect your "right." On the other hand if a law was passed to outlaw christianity then the constitution would have something to say about that, it's a right and protected by the constituion.