[Beewee]

The NRA is the biggest association that promotes the 2nd Amendment (keep and bear arms). I have seen the same TV special where a girl from California was entering the Olympic games and could practice with a target pistol because it violated CA gun laws, though the gun was apparently legal for the Olympics. At first I was on the NRA's side until they started to milk this TV show for all it was worth. It was on everyday!

Of course that's not all. The NRA seems to oppose any kind of new gun restrictions or saftey measures. They were against putting locks on handguns, even though you could just take the lock off once the gun was yours. The 30 day waiting period (I think that's how long it is) was also opposed, and don't even think of talking to an NRA member about gun registration because... "This is stoopid, the registration is only gonna have a list of honest, law bidding gun owners, and all it will do is give the Government a list to take are guns away when ever they see fit."

The NRA acts as if the 2nd Amendment is the only Amendment in the Constitution, or at least the most important one. With Charlton Heston, (a guns slinging cowboy of the old day) as their President it doesn't make me feel any safer.

Take this opinion as you will. I have made an enemy of the NRA, great way to start a Monday.

[TNproud2b]

good for you.


Today I'm driving to WalMart to buy a shotgun.

[theUpsetter]

Originally posted by Beewee:
<STRONG>
"This is stoopid, the registration is only gonna have a list of honest, law bidding gun owners, and all it will do is give the Government a list to take are guns away when ever they see fit."

The NRA acts as if the 2nd Amendment is the only Amendment in the Constitution, or at least the most important one. With Charlton Heston, (a guns slinging cowboy of the old day) as their President it doesn't make me feel any safer.
</STRONG>

Nazi's used registration lists created in the 20's to disarm their citizens.

The Second Amendment isn't the only amendment in the Constitution, but it is the one under greatest attack, and needs to be preserved for democracy, just like all the other amendments.

[Moderator]

Beewee's right..we obviously have to honor the Constitution..our right to bear arms is here to stay..for good or ill..but how does a safety infringe on that right? And there is a limit to the type of power an individual needs to hunt or shoot a bad guy.

I don't know Constitutional law but I'd imagine that the strongest argument for guns is that no governmet should be able to suppress it's own people with force...and typically guns are how that's done..so in that sense our right to arm ourselves preserves a certain balance.

It's really a matter of common sense more than anything...and the NRA is way...way to the right of the line that marks common sense.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Moderator:
<STRONG>Beewee's right..we obviously have to honor the Constitution..our right to bear arms is here to stay..for good or ill..but how does a safety infringe on that right? And there is a limit to the type of power an individual needs to hunt or shoot a bad guy.</STRONG>

But is there a limit to the power an individual needs to be able to overthrow an oppressive government?

[Moderator]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
<STRONG>

But is there a limit to the power an individual needs to be able to overthrow an oppressive government?</STRONG>

Again...common sense...we can't all park Daisy Cutters in our garages now can we.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by Moderator:
<STRONG>

Again...common sense...we can't all park Daisy Cutters in our garages now can we.</STRONG>

Maybe not, but the citizenry needs to have the ability to keep their government in check, that's the whole point of democracy. Guns are not just for self defense or for hunting or for insecure men who feel the need to boost their egos. They are also to ensure that the government does not become too powerful, too tyrannical, or just too far off from what the people want. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't want to face the National Guard, Army, Marines, or what have you with nothing but a 9mm or a target pistol.

[ChaChi Boy]

Originally posted by TNproud2b:
<STRONG>Today I'm driving to WalMart to buy a shotgun.</STRONG>

Gee, that doesn't sound like a white trash American thing to do

[Myrkridia]

ARE YOU NUTS?!?! The NRA is the only thing standing between the government and total supresion of the 2nd amendment. In exactly one hour I will drive to my nearest grocery store, stock up on food stuffs, and canned goods, then it's over to Cabela's (oh why can't grocery stores and gun stores be merged as one for the sake of convienance?!) to hord munitions. A short 7 hour drive to the rocky mountains where I will remain in my cabin with my food and beloved guns. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND THEIR GUN HATING LACKIES WILL NEVER TAKE AWAY MY 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS!! YOU HEAR ME!??! NEVER!!!!!!!!!

[G Barnett]

The thing about the NRA that I find most annoying, is that they tend to overlook or ignore three words (or two, depending on how you judge hyphenation) in the 2nd Amendment that, to me, run completely contrary to many of their recent lobbying efforts: "Well-regulated militia."

Now me, I equate the National Guard with the intent of that particular phrase. I have no problems with some simple handguns and hunting rifles, but if you want to cart around mil-spec weaponry, join the freakin' Guard!! I have yet to hear what I would consider a rational argument for lone individuals to have what amounts to a large arsenal of military quality weaponry in their personal possession.

The NRA seems to want the 'bear arms' part of the 2nd Amendment without the accompanying 'well-regulated militia' qualifier. That is sheer hypocrisy from where I stand.


G Barnett

[BRussell]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
<STRONG>The NRA seems to want the 'bear arms' part of the 2nd Amendment without the accompanying 'well-regulated militia' qualifier. That is sheer hypocrisy from where I stand.</STRONG>

Heh. Yeah. Look at the NRA web site. Right on top it says: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." As if that's all there was. Why do they leave it out? Because they know it destroys their argument that "we need guns so we can kill the gov't if we don't like them."

Look, the day of the militias is gone.

Yes, part of the reason the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights is that they didn't like the idea of a standing army - they preferred the idea of citizens forming the military when it was necessary, and bringing their guns with them.

But that era is now gone. We have a standing military. It does not use militias.

Maybe that's a bad thing. Maybe we should abolish the military as it is now and use state-based National Guards. With all the high-tech equipment that's used now, I think most people would agree that that would be a bad thing for the military - but it could be done.

However, as of now, we don't use militias.

For this reason, I believe the 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It just doesn't apply anymore.

Does that mean guns should be confiscated? No. There is a common law right to have guns. But it's not a 2nd amendment question anymore.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
<STRONG>The thing about the NRA that I find most annoying, is that they tend to overlook or ignore three words (or two, depending on how you judge hyphenation) in the 2nd Amendment that, to me, run completely contrary to many of their recent lobbying efforts: "Well-regulated militia."

Now me, I equate the National Guard with the intent of that particular phrase. I have no problems with some simple handguns and hunting rifles, but if you want to cart around mil-spec weaponry, join the freakin' Guard!! I have yet to hear what I would consider a rational argument for lone individuals to have what amounts to a large arsenal of military quality weaponry in their personal possession.</STRONG>

So basically, you're saying that you agree that the government should have the ability to unilaterlly impose it's will on the people? The people need to have the ability to defy and even overthrow the government. The way I interpret "well-regulated militia" is a "military" body outside the control of the government. No I do not think that everyone needs to have their very own assault rifle, but I do think that every should be able to get their hands on one if it becomes necessary to ...implement a change in government power. There should be some voluntary body which keeps and maintains these arms and trains volunteers in their use so that if the need arises the people are able to effectively resist the government. The national guard most certainly does not fit the bill as it is controlled by the government.

[TomCondon]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
<STRONG>The thing about the NRA that I find most annoying, is that they tend to overlook or ignore three words (or two, depending on how you judge hyphenation) in the 2nd Amendment that, to me, run completely contrary to many of their recent lobbying efforts: "Well-regulated militia."

Now me, I equate the National Guard with the intent of that particular phrase.

G Barnett</STRONG>

I am glad that you equate the National Guard with that phrase. Unfortunately, you do not read much history. A good portion of the army that fought the British in the Revolutionary War were not regular army, but were militia. Regular, gun owning, people, usually farmers, who would come together on an almost ad hoc basis to fight battles during the war. They were not National Guard. This concept was based on what the Swiss practiced at that time in history for self defense.

This is what the second amendment is protecting. The right of ordinary people to own guns for their collective self-defense.

[driven]

Originally posted by Beewee:
<STRONG>The NRA is the biggest association that promotes the 2nd Amendment (keep and bear arms). I have seen the same TV special where a girl from California was entering the Olympic games and could practice with a target pistol because it violated CA gun laws, though the gun was apparently legal for the Olympics. At first I was on the NRA's side until they started to milk this TV show for all it was worth. It was on everyday!
</STRONG>

So it's ok and agreeable so long as they don't say it more than once per week?

<STRONG>

Of course that's not all. The NRA seems to oppose any kind of new gun restrictions or saftey measures. They were against putting locks on handguns, even though you could just take the lock off once the gun was yours. The 30 day waiting period (I think that's how long it is) was also opposed, and don't even think of talking to an NRA member about gun registration because... "This is stoopid, the registration is only gonna have a list of honest, law bidding gun owners, and all it will do is give the Government a list to take are guns away when ever they see fit."
</STRONG>

This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that the NRA does more harm than good sometimes.

(I should form a new group ... law abiding gun owners against the NRA. LAGOATNRA &lt;GRIN&gt; )

IMHO: Nothing wrong with safety locks, nothing wrong with a cool-down period, nothing wrong with background checks and &lt;gasp&gt; nothing wrong with banning fully automatic weapons (so long as they ban foreign AND domestic automatic weapons, the last attempt was a sick made-in-america ad.)

Where I draw the line is trying to remove my handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. These are items that I *legally* own and use in a *safe* manner.


As to the registration: I am not totally for it. There is precident for this being misused. (This is why many state constitutions specifically BAN such registrations.)

Background checks are one thing, registrations are another.


[/QB][/QUOTE]

[ringo]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
<STRONG>The thing about the NRA that I find most annoying, is that they tend to overlook or ignore three words (or two, depending on how you judge hyphenation) in the 2nd Amendment that, to me, run completely contrary to many of their recent lobbying efforts: "Well-regulated militia."
</STRONG>

While it's true we currently have no militia, assembling one is made much easier when those who would serve are already armed and familiar with their weapons. Better to err on the side of caution, just in case of an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it situation where you would actually *need* a militia.

Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people. Better to legislate actions then objects.

[smacintush]

They were against putting locks on handguns, even though you could just take the lock off once the gun was yours.

Uh, tell me then what the hell good the locks will do if you don't have to use them? nothing

The 30 day waiting period (I think that's how long it is) was also opposed

And what, is a 30 day waiting period supposed to do (in reality) to save lives or prevent accidents? nothing

and don't even think of talking to an NRA member about gun registration because... "This is stoopid, the registration is only gonna have a list of honest, law bidding gun owners, and all it will do is give the Government a list to take are guns away when ever they see fit."

They have history to back this up, as someone pointed out about the Nazi's. Remember, the Nazi's were voted into power.

These laws are opposed because hey do absolutely NOTHING to prevent crimes or accidents. You don't see the danger of passing laws willy nilly that don't work? It is called incrementalism. They pass a law, it does nothing, and they say "we need new laws", and they add more and more until the mantra is "banning all guns".

They keep taking tiny bites out of our rights until one day, what do we have left? We have to be intelligent when they are discussing how to restrict us even more. If it does no obvious good, we have to fight it, no matter if it is guns or whatever. Laws like you mention will do nothing, so they must be shot down.

[climber]

Originally posted by G Barnett:
<STRONG>

.....Now me, I equate the National Guard with the intent of that particular phrase. I have no problems with some simple handguns and hunting rifles, but if you want to cart around mil-spec weaponry, join the freakin' Guard!! I have yet to hear what I would consider a rational argument for lone individuals to have what amounts to a large arsenal of military quality weaponry in their personal possession.......

G Barnett</STRONG>

The problem with that is how do you tell the difference between a rifle intended for hunting from an assault weapon?? The only real difference is esthetic. Both come in Semi-auto forms and both fire similar cartridges. We already have limits on the number of shells and full auto.

Most gun owners understand how little difference there is between a �mil-Spec� gun and their deer hunting rifle. They are rightfully paranoid because they understand that the solution anti-gun people have is to just ban them all.

If a gun restriction is going to make our society safer it would have to accomplish one simple goal. It would have to eliminate the access to guns by criminals. In order to keep those guns from the criminals you would first have to keep them from the rest of us, otherwise the criminal will always have a source. It�s plainly obvious it does little good to pass a law making it illegal to a criminal.
[/LIST]

[malvolio]

Originally posted by climber:
<STRONG>

Most gun owners understand how little difference there is between a “mil-Spec” gun and their deer hunting rifle. They are rightfully paranoid because they understand that the solution anti-gun people have is to just ban them all.
[/LIST]</STRONG>

Give me a break! Anyone who tells you that they need a semi-auto rifle with a 20-shot magazine in order to hunt deer is either a liar or the worst damn hunter in the history of Mankind.
And I would not want to be within 50 miles of this clown if he was out "hunting" with a weapon like that!

[finboy]

Originally posted by Moderator:
<STRONG>
It's really a matter of common sense more than anything...and the NRA is way...way to the right of the line that marks common sense.</STRONG>

I don't think that there IS a LINE when it comes to the fundamental right of self-preservation/protection.

Why is it no one talks about the LINE when discussing the other Amendments to the Constitution? What if the government made you apply for a permit before you could write a dissenting opinion on the Internet?

Of course, there's a difference. But my right of self-preservation is absolute. So is my right of free speech. Just because the Constitution might not address all the finer points doesn't negate my absolute right.

[climber]

Originally posted by malvolio:
<STRONG>


Give me a break! Anyone who tells you that they need a semi-auto rifle with a 20-shot magazine in order to hunt deer is either a liar or the worst damn hunter in the history of Mankind.
And I would not want to be within 50 miles of this clown if he was out "hunting" with a weapon like that!
</STRONG>

20 rounds is allready banned (new ones at least), are you suggesting ALL semi-autos should likewise be banned?

[finboy]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>
But that era is now gone. We have a standing military. It does not use militias.

Maybe that's a bad thing. Maybe we should abolish the military as it is now and use state-based National Guards. With all the high-tech equipment that's used now, I think most people would agree that that would be a bad thing for the military - but it could be done.

However, as of now, we don't use militias.

For this reason, I believe the 2nd amendment is an anachronism. It just doesn't apply anymore.

Does that mean guns should be confiscated? No. There is a common law right to have guns. But it's not a 2nd amendment question anymore.</STRONG>

Right, so free speech doesn't apply to the Internet, because we didn't have the Internet when the Constitution was drafted.

I agree that there is a "common law" right, or fundamental human right, to own a weapon. It goes beyond the 2nd Amendment.

[finboy]

Originally posted by malvolio:
<STRONG>


Give me a break! Anyone who tells you that they need a semi-auto rifle with a 20-shot magazine in order to hunt deer is either a liar or the worst damn hunter in the history of Mankind.
And I would not want to be within 50 miles of this clown if he was out "hunting" with a weapon like that!
</STRONG>

What do you know about it? Who are you to call someone a clown?

[finboy]

Originally posted by smacintush:
<STRONG>

These laws are opposed because hey do absolutely NOTHING to prevent crimes or accidents. You don't see the danger of passing laws willy nilly that don't work? It is called incrementalism. They pass a law, it does nothing, and they say "we need new laws", and they add more and more until the mantra is "banning all guns".

They keep taking tiny bites out of our rights until one day, what do we have left? We have to be intelligent when they are discussing how to restrict us even more. If it does no obvious good, we have to fight it, no matter if it is guns or whatever. Laws like you mention will do nothing, so they must be shot down.</STRONG>

YEAH BABY! Welcome to EVERY social initiative in the last 100 years.

Suddenly, we all wake up one day and we're disarmed. Happened in Australia and Britain in recent times. Will NEVER happen in Israel or Switzerland.

If we're armed, we're free. Or we're not. Take a choice. That's one thing the NRA is good about -- there's no middle ground. That's what's needed.

On a side note, I let my NRA membership lapse in 1992 because it always hurt me in arguments with Leftists. After they got to a point they couldn't refute (or one of theirs they couldn't defend) they'd imply that my NRA membership invalidated my opinion since NRA was some kind of "fascist" group. Thankfully, since then, more people have started to learn the truth.

[hytek]

Yeah, I wish they would just do away with guns all together. I prefer pushing people out of windows anyways.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by finboy:
<STRONG>Right, so free speech doesn't apply to the Internet, because we didn't have the Internet when the Constitution was drafted</STRONG>

But the 1st Amendment isn't limited to certain places. It's broad enough to include the internet, because it doesn't specifically state otherwise. The 2nd specifically states a condition, and that condition no longer exists.

[climber]

Who are you trying to keep from getting a gun, a decorated Veteran from World War II or some thug from the inner city. Maybe the Vet still keeps the semi-auto Browning model 1911 he carried during the war. (This is the handgun most current semi's are based on)

The ONLY way you are going to keep the thug from getting one is to first take it from the Decorated Vet.

[dreilly1]

I've seen my views on gun ownership and the second amendment change quite a bit over the years. While I consider guns dangerous and will never own one, I've realized that it's essential for citizens who can handle guns responsibly to own and carry them without a hassle. It's mostly due, strangely enough, to watching the legal skirmishes over digital content and piracy.

For instance, I cringed when the DeCSS stuff started flying around. Why should someone be prosecuted just because they make (or use) a program that can 'crack' the access-control encryption on DVDs to watch them on Linux? If they do something illegal with the content, like distribute it over the Internet, then prosecute them for that. But don't prosecute them just for linking to the DeCSS Software if they have no intent of using it to break the law! Why should we outlaw technology?

Then one day, I read some right-wing propaganda from those gun-nuts that said something like,

I cringe everytime Gun Control laws start flying around. Why should someone be harassed just because they own (and use) a gun? If they do something illegal with the gun, like rob a grocery store, then prosecute them for that. But don't harass them just for owning a gun if they have no intent of using it to break the law! Why should we outlaw technology?

See the similarities there? I gained a new perspective on the Gun Control debate from that exercise. I believe that any law that tries to ban a technology under the theory that you can assume what the technology is used for is bad law and not the type of thing we elect our representatives to do. So I am vehemently against laws like the DMCA which outlaw technology that can be used to violate copyright (but often aren't), and I'm coming around to being against laws that ban weapons technology because they can be used in violent crimes (but often aren't).

Did that make sense to anyone, or am I just weird?

[hytek]

What it all boils down to is, by God, if I want to go down to Wal-Mart and buy a gun, then, by God, I ought to be able to go down to Wal-Mart and buy a gun. I don't need some son-of-b!tch taking that right away from me if I didn't do anything wrong. I have to believe that if our fore-fathers were civilized enough to put that right into the Constitution, then we should act like a civilized society and uphold those same ideals and learn to live with our freedoms. I think what most anti-gun supporters are really thinking in the back of their mind is they know what's best for everyone, and the rest of society has become too un-civilized and as punishment they need some of their rights removed. Well, I don't wish for less freedom than I was born with, you know, I tend to go through life wanting more. If I wanted to live in China, I'd go live in China.

[Moderator]

i don't think any resonable person will debate the fact that your right to own a gun should be taken away. The question is how powerful of a gun does one need,? why shouldn't it have a safety? what's so wrong with madatory background checks? What's wrong with waiting a waiting period of a couple days? And if you can't wait a couple of days..what's the rush? Should everyone be able to buy guns? Should everyone be able to buy any gun?

What about the future? You think people bitch now that the 2nd ammendment is arcane...what will happen in 100 years or 500 years when someone builds a handheld gun that can take out a city block..should you be able to buy that too? Should they sell them in Walmart?

Should there be no line drawn, ever?

[Arty50]

Originally posted by dreilly1:
<STRONG>Did that make sense to anyone, or am I just weird?</STRONG>

It made perfect sense. Gun laws are great tools for politicians. They say, "Look! I'm tough on crime." However, they just prevented/hindered a few hundred thousand law abiding citizens from purchasing a weapon. And whether or not they saved a life is questionable. Not to mention that said weapon could have been used in a self defence situation.

There are great laws on the books, people. Some charges include "Assault with a deadly weapon," "Manslaughter," and "Murder." All of these generally carry huge penalties. As far as guns go, waiting periods and background checks are fine by me. Waiting periods help prevent the small chance a non-gun owner might make an impulsive decision to go out an shoot someone, and background checks prevent the legal sale of firearms to known felons.

A lot of people who argue for gun laws have never tried to buy a gun in California. If you did, you'd be on the NRA's side in a heartbeat. Out here, we're basically a hop, skip, and a jump away from a total ban. It's just plain wrong.

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Arty50 ]

[TomCondon]

Originally posted by Moderator:
<STRONG>i don't think any resonable person will debate the fact that your right to own a gun should be taken away. </STRONG>

Actually, many so-called reasonable people want guns to be banned. Many of these people join gun control organizations to forward this goal in an incremental manner. These poeple would overturn the second amendment in a heartbeat if they could. The resistance to these incremental steps is portrayed as extremist. Rights are generally not lost all at once. They are slowly eroded. This way, people do not really notice.

[daimoni]

.

[climber]

Originally posted by Arty50:
<STRONG>

It made perfect sense. Gun laws are great tools for politicians. They say, "Look! I'm tough on crime." However, they just prevented/hindered a few hundred thousand law abiding citizens from purchasing a weapon. And whether or not they saved a life is questionable. Not to mention that said weapon could have been used in a self defence situation.

There are great laws on the books, people. Some charges include "Assault with a deadly weapon," "Manslaughter," and "Murder." All of these generally carry huge penalties. As far as guns go, waiting periods and background checks are fine by me. Waiting periods help prevent the small chance a non-gun owner might make an impulsive decision to go out an shoot someone, and background checks prevent the sale of firearms to known felons.

A lot of people who argue for gun laws have never tried to buy a gun in California. If you did, you'd be on the NRA's side in a heartbeat. Out here, we're basically a hop, skip, and a jump away from a total ban. It's just plain wrong.</STRONG>

The problem with ANY of these laws is that NONE of them, including background checks, keep the weapons away from the criminals. The ONLY thing they accomplish is to restrict the ability of law abiding persons to have access.

It would take all of two seconds for the average criminal to get around any background check.

[ringo]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>

Great laws, sure... and they make sense to a sane, law abiding citizen. But the problem with these laws (even the ones that carry 'tough' penalties) are that people who don't obey the law (those would be criminals/insane people) don't obey the law. Why? Because they're so messed up they don't think in terms of 'getting caught' in the first place... all they want is the cash or the drugs or to hurt people. We could pass a 'one strike yer out' law and it still wouldn't change them.</STRONG>

Giving up freedoms doesn't make us more safe, it just makes us less free. The criminals are the problem, not the guns.

[TomCondon]

Let's see. We have laws making the use of guns to commit crimes illegal. But, those damn criminals keep disobeying these laws. Wait, I know. Let's pass some more laws so it becomes hard for people to get guns. The criminals are sure to obey these new laws. Problem solved. Laws are GOOD!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by BRussell:
<STRONG>But the 1st Amendment isn't limited to certain places. It's broad enough to include the internet, because it doesn't specifically state otherwise. The 2nd specifically states a condition, and that condition no longer exists.</STRONG>

Unfortunately for you, this is not the case. We have documentation of the intent of the Framers, and in there we see that it wasn't just about maintaining a militia. The NRA may be wrong on some things, but they were right about one thing: it's the last-ditch failsafe against oppression. They knew the government could eventually go corrupt, even with the other safeguards they had put into place. As a liberal, can you possibly deny that this is happenning even today, in light of the USA/PATRIOT act, the DMCA and SSSCA, rampant corporate whoring in the legislative and executive branches, and all that? I'm not even a liberal and I can smell something up.

Of course, if you took into account the meaning of the word "regulate" as used at the time of the writing of the Constitution, you'd already see this. As used at that time, "regulate" means "to hold in control." This is the final linchpin in the system of checks and balances: the people's right to revolt, should the government ever go corrupt. Of course, there's a check against this: revolution is illegal, so if you want to go that far, you'd better have enough popular support to win so that you can pardon yourself, or you're screwed big time.

Believe it or not, the vast majority of the people in this nation, even among those who own guns, will never hurt ot kill anyone with a gun. Guns don't cause violence, any more than birth-control education causes pregnancy. When it comes down to it, people are still responsible for their own actions.

[climber]

I think all the anti-gun folks have left..... They seem unable to answer tough questions to uphold their position.

I can at least understand (not agree) with those who think ALL guns should be banned. I can not understand those who suggest we should only get rid of the "bad" ones or at least take them away from the criminals. They seem to in perpetual denial of reality. All guns are capable of great harm, it is their most basic function. If law a law abiding citizens can get one, then the criminal will always have access.

[daimoni]

.

[Arty50]

Originally posted by climber:
<STRONG>

The problem with ANY of these laws is that NONE of them, including background checks, keep the weapons away from the criminals. The ONLY thing they accomplish is to restrict the ability of law abiding persons to have access.

It would take all of two seconds for the average criminal to get around any background check.</STRONG>

I completely agree. I originally had the words "legal sale" in my post, but cut them out accidentally while rewriting it. I've gone back and changed it.

[KellyHogan]

We have military dominance of the air, land and sea. The next step would be space. Space based systems could be used to silence and oppress any nation one could choose. They could even be used to oppress people 'anywhere'. What would be the point of 'the right to bear arms' when you could be zapped by a laser from space? So we have to make our voice heard against fascist programs like Death Star...sorry, Star Wars.

Personally if legislation on arms is going to be changed, it should be that only people in full-term employment who have a mortgage and are above a certain age should bear arms. As long as the arms are taken out of the hands of irresponsible, unemployed and uneducated people then we might be able to reduce SOME of the gun crimes. But then there is always the black market.

[Arty50]

Originally posted by daimoni:
<STRONG>

Yes, yes. And no.</STRONG>

So what about cars, kitchen knives, a cord of rope, etc.

Let's not blame the driver, crazed homeowner, or strangler.

It's Ford, Henckels, and Home Depot's fault.

Here's another one: if a child joyrides their parent's car and kills a pedestrian, is it GM's fault?

Why do we continue to refuse to accept the personal responsibility that individuals have over their own actions?

[theUpsetter]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>Personally if legislation on arms is going to be changed, it should be that only people in full-term employment who have a mortgage and are above a certain age should bear arms. As long as the arms are taken out of the hands of irresponsible, unemployed and uneducated people then we might be able to reduce SOME of the gun crimes. But then there is always the black market.</STRONG>

That would be discrimination. Uneducated people generally live in poorer areas with higher crime rates so and they need a gun more than most. I think anybody who isn't a felon should have the right to carry a gun, that policy has lead to reduced crime in every state that introduced it.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by theUpsetter:
<STRONG>

That would be discrimination. Uneducated people generally live in poorer areas with higher crime rates so and they need a gun more than most. I think anybody who isn't a felon should have the right to carry a gun, that policy has lead to reduced crime in every state that introduced it.</STRONG>

hahaha...you kill me. Poor people live in poorer areas where poor people are shooting poor people and thus poor people need guns to defend themselves from poor people?

[climber]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

hahaha...you kill me. Poor people live in poorer areas where poor people are shooting poor people and thus poor people need guns to defend themselves from poor people?</STRONG>

I thought you were joking...aparantly not??

The concept that only a "home owner" should own a gun is absurd. and I am a homebuilder.

[theUpsetter]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>
hahaha...you kill me. Poor people live in poorer areas where poor people are shooting poor people and thus poor people need guns to defend themselves from poor people?</STRONG>

Thats not what I am saying. Poor people who live in bad areas need guns to defend themselves from crime, in the vast majority of incidences a gun will scare away a criminal.

And besides, are poor people not allowed to defend themselves? Poor people general live in higher crime areas, and most criminals don't go through legal channels to get their guns, so are they just going to turn in their firearms if the government says "hey guys, you're not allowed to have guns," hell no. The only thing that will happen if poor people are not permitted to have a gun is that they will be at the total mercy of criminals with guns.

[hytek]

Originally posted by Moderator:

i don't think any resonable person will debate the fact that your right to own a gun should be taken away. The question is how powerful of a gun does one need,? why shouldn't it have a safety? what's so wrong with madatory background checks? What's wrong with waiting a waiting period of a couple days? And if you can't wait a couple of days..what's the rush? Should everyone be able to buy guns? Should everyone be able to buy any gun?
What about the future? You think people bitch now that the 2nd ammendment is arcane...what will happen in 100 years or 500 years when someone builds a handheld gun that can take out a city block..should you be able to buy that too? Should they sell them in Walmart?

Should there be no line drawn, ever?

Back in the '50's the US military develop a small nuclear weapon which could be fired from a standard artilery gun. Problem was that the soldiers that fired it were inside it's blast radius and were exposed to fallout, however successful, it was quickly and wisely done away with. I guess it could be possible to develop something similar for a handgun and use it to take out a city block or something, but this falls under tatical nuclear weapons and would certainly not be subject to the Brady Bill and you certainly wouldn't find something like that in Wal-Mart, not in a thousand million years.

[daimoni]

.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by theUpsetter:
<STRONG>

Thats not what I am saying. Poor people who live in bad areas need guns to defend themselves from crime, in the vast majority of incidences a gun will scare away a criminal.

And besides, are poor people not allowed to defend themselves? </STRONG>

Most violent crimes against the poor are by poor armed people. It's the police's job to defend the poor. I'm talking about removing guns from irresponsible people. That doesn't necassarily mean poor people are irresponsible. Its just natural that if someone has a well paid job, a home and a family that they will be more responsible and more interested in defending their liberty. I hope.

[theUpsetter]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Most violent crimes against the poor are by poor armed people. It's the police's job to defend the poor. </STRONG>

My grandparents owned an apartment building in Echo Park, a pretty bad place in LA, my dad used to take me there every evening and almost all day on weekends to maintain the building and paint over graffite. I was 12 when my grandparents sold it, but I spent a lot time growing up there. There were always drug dealers on the corner, we would call the cops on them, but they would never show up, and during the LA riots, there was car firebombed on the front lawn. One time a gang got angry at one of the renters, and started climbing through her windows, she called my dad because even though he was 20 minutes away, he would get there before the cops would. When I was 8, my dad said to me "Brandon, the police are only here to outline the body."

My point is, the cops may be here to "serve and protect." But if they're your only protection, you might as well give yourself up, because by the time they come to protect you'd already be dead. Poor people have the right to defend themselves, just like homeowners and rich people.

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: theUpsetter ]

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

Most violent crimes against the poor are by poor armed people. It's the police's job to defend the poor. I'm talking about removing guns from irresponsible people. That doesn't necassarily mean poor people are irresponsible. Its just natural that if someone has a well paid job, a home and a family that they will be more responsible and more interested in defending their liberty. I hope.</STRONG>

You mean "property" don't you? Since liberty should be something that they all have in equal quantities. But that wouldn't be the case in such as system as you propose, would it? Don't poor people have just as much a right to defend themselves as rich?

BlackGriffen