Gun Control and the Second Amendment - Yay or Nay?

[Maerngau]

I believe that all the discussion about CCW is sorta missing the point.

I am not in favor of banning firearms wholesale.

The crux of the matter is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Hopefully everyone can agree that achieving that would be a good thing.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Because guns make it MUCH EASIER to kill people!!

If this were not true, the gunnuts would not even care about owning them.


If guns are no more effective than knives or pipe-bombs, then clearly no one needs them for self-defense.


-_____

IE, don;t try to play it both ways. GUNS ARE DEADLY. They kill more easily than any comparable object. That;s why you folks want them. Don;t spew that "it's the person, not the gun" BS.

It's bullshit that the person pulling the trigger is responsible for the murder and not the gun? Is the knife also responsible for the stabbing? Is this going to turn into this silly primitive belief proposed by Jesus that one's hands cause them to steal or one's eyes cause them to lust?

[Divinus Fides]

Invalid comparison. Everyone agrees that genocide and mass murder are bad things, regardless of the death count, however, no serious movement exists to ban cars, despite the fact that an average car is more likely to kill someone than an average gun. And for quite a few people, guns are an integral part of their life. Anyone who works in a gun or ammo factory, owns a gun store, gunsmiths, or works for a firearms company would be greatly impacted by gun legislation.

What a terrible argument.

By this logic, we should all be wearing clothes made with spinning wheels and handlooms - just because when newer technology came along, it threw an awful lot of textile craftsmen out of work.

Saving an industry simply because it employs people is NOT a good idea.

so everyone here agrees no industry or company is too big to fail?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

so everyone here agrees no industry or company is too big to fail?

I don't know as anyone I've talked to on this forum supports the government bailouts.

[Bluth Corporation]

Hopefully everyone can agree that achieving that would be a good thing.

It isn't, since the government has taken it upon itself to decide who is and is not a criminal.

Since the whole point of weapons ownership is to ensure that an effective revolt can always be mounted should it become necessary, the government being in the business of deciding who is and is not allowed to own weapons is patently absurd.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Hopefully everyone can agree that achieving that would be a good thing.

Since the whole point of weapons ownership is to ensure that an effective revolt can always be mounted should it become necessary, the government being in the business of deciding who is and is not allowed to own weapons is patently absurd.

Yeah, pretty much this.

[Cameroi]

i still say stop manufacturing, importing, and selling them, and the problem of their being in the hands of people who can't control themselves will mostly solve itself in reasonably due time.

no ban on possession of anything required.

same goes for other harmful objects and substances. however anyone chooses to define or identify them.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

i still say stop manufacturing, importing, and selling them, and the problem of their being in the hands of people who can't control themselves will mostly solve itself in reasonably due time.

no ban on possession of anything required.

same goes for other harmful objects and substances. however anyone chooses to define or identify them.

So don't ever produce anything that might possibly be harmful? That seems a rather dangerous precedent to set.

[Intestinal fluids]

This quote needs to be posted at the top of every page of these debates.

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

[New Kereptica]

i still say stop manufacturing, importing, and selling them, and the problem of their being in the hands of people who can't control themselves will mostly solve itself in reasonably due time.

no ban on possession of anything required.

same goes for other harmful objects and substances. however anyone chooses to define or identify them.

So don't ever produce anything that might possibly be harmful? That seems a rather dangerous precedent to set.

Those little plastic forks are pretty dangerous.

[DaWoad]

Did you even read the scenario? What sort of person brings a dog capable of defending them to the office? How will a piece of paper do anything to stop a man dead set of violence? Same goes to a little spray bottle of hot sauce... Also, you assume that someone with the intentions to commit a crime isn't going to have a concealed semiautomatic weapon in their possession, a very grave assumption to make.

Wait have you ever been peppersprayed? its not like getting hotsauce in your eyes at all. if the guy has a semi-auto anything and is hiding in a dark corner in a parking facility a concealed semi-automatic weapon of your own is only gonna get you killed

Response time for police can range from 5 minutes to upwards of 30. Plenty of time for the perps to inflict lethal wounds to the defenseless family occupying the residence. You also make the assumption that all the shitbags care about is your material possessions, plenty of rapists, murders, and kidnappers break into homes...

yes but if someone breaks into your house you have no way of evaluating what they will do. You start shooting at three armed people you will, almost certainly die, perhaps causing the death of your family and the others as well. So while itrs possible three armed people broke into your house to rape or murder there's also a possibility they're just there for your stuff but if you start a firefight people will die. (a more likely possibility at that in that its three people and rapes usually aren't associated with breakins)

No one wants to be in a situation where they have to use a weapon on an offender ANYWHERE. That isn't the damn point. The point is that wherever the situation takes place, one must be best equipped to handle it. Having a large stick in a narrow corridor or alley isn't much good.

in a narrow corridor or alley your good actually you have a problem when movement is limited in all directions not just your side

Once again, response time. If my life or that of a loved one is on the line I am not going to become a victim just waiting for a rescue that may never make it. Are you aware how police protocol doesn't have the officers just running into a building with an armed assailant? Even when they get there they aren't going to make a move to save you for quite some time. Real life isn't an episode of 24 or miami vice.

lol I've never watched either that being said give me one situation in which someone whos intent was to kill you couldn't not do so without ever giving you a chance to draw your weapon (find it/load it w/e)

[Maerngau]

Because guns make it MUCH EASIER to kill people!!

If this were not true, the gunnuts would not even care about owning them.


If guns are no more effective than knives or pipe-bombs, then clearly no one needs them for self-defense.


-_____

IE, don;t try to play it both ways. GUNS ARE DEADLY. They kill more easily than any comparable object. That;s why you folks want them. Don;t spew that "it's the person, not the gun" BS.

It's bullshit that the person pulling the trigger is responsible for the murder and not the gun? Is the knife also responsible for the stabbing? Is this going to turn into this silly primitive belief proposed by Jesus that one's hands cause them to steal or one's eyes cause them to lust?

Of course not, try to keep up.

Guns make it EASIER to kill people. That's why they were invented. This means that, if more guns are available to potential murderers, more people will get murdered.

[Maerngau]

Invalid comparison. Everyone agrees that genocide and mass murder are bad things, regardless of the death count, however, no serious movement exists to ban cars, despite the fact that an average car is more likely to kill someone than an average gun. And for quite a few people, guns are an integral part of their life. Anyone who works in a gun or ammo factory, owns a gun store, gunsmiths, or works for a firearms company would be greatly impacted by gun legislation.

What a terrible argument.

By this logic, we should all be wearing clothes made with spinning wheels and handlooms - just because when newer technology came along, it threw an awful lot of textile craftsmen out of work.

Saving an industry simply because it employs people is NOT a good idea.

so everyone here agrees no industry or company is too big to fail?

Absolutely.

Those that are need to be convicted of antitrust violations.

[Bottle]

This quote needs to be posted at the top of every page of these debates.

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

I'd agree with that, but not for the reason you think...

See, the strongest "second amendment" supporters are also typically the most anti-choice politicians. Don't ask me precisely why, there's many theories, but there it is. So I know that when I see a gun-toting Second Amendment pusher politician, odds are he regards me as a stupid slut who can't be trusted to make her own medical decisions.

[DaWoad]

Of course not, try to keep up.

Guns make it EASIER to kill people. That's why they were invented. This means that, if more guns are available to potential murderers, more people will get murdered.

agreed you can fight off someone wielding a knife or run away from a pipe bomb wielder ... the same just isn't true of a gun

[DaWoad]

This quote needs to be posted at the top of every page of these debates.

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

prove it

[Maerngau]

Hopefully everyone can agree that achieving that would be a good thing.

It isn't, since the government has taken it upon itself to decide who is and is not a criminal.

The government does this anyway. That's why we have judges, courts, policemen, DA's, and prisons.

To suggest otherwise is patently absurd.



More to the point, anyone should be able to get a gun who

a) Is not a convicted felon
b) Can pass a safety test and a test on guns laws in their jurisdiction
c) Is psychologically competent to own a deadly weapon.


The bit about "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" means this:

Private transfer of guns to people who do NOT meet the requirements above need to be made illegal. And that provision needs to be enforced.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

This quote needs to be posted at the top of every page of these debates.

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

I'd agree with that, but not for the reason you think...

See, the strongest "second amendment" supporters are also typically the most anti-choice politicians. Don't ask me precisely why, there's many theories, but there it is. So I know that when I see a gun-toting Second Amendment pusher politician, odds are he regards me as a stupid slut who can't be trusted to make her own medical decisions.

With respect, that is a hijack.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Hopefully everyone can agree that achieving that would be a good thing.

It isn't, since the government has taken it upon itself to decide who is and is not a criminal.

The government does this anyway. That's why we have judges, courts, policemen, DA's, and prisons.

To suggest otherwise is patently absurd.



More to the point, anyone should be able to get a gun who

a) Is not a convicted felon
b) Can pass a safety test and a test on guns laws in their jurisdiction
c) Is psychologically competent to own a deadly weapon.


The bit about "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" means this:

Private transfer of guns to people who do NOT meet the requirements above need to be made illegal. And that provision needs to be enforced.

It's already illegal.

Back to (c) ... what kind of psychological test were you thinking of, to entitle a citizen to a gun license ?

Were you thinking, they should be assessed by a psychologist (or psychiatrist) ... and if so, for how many hours? Before a report of their mental compentency is given to whatever authority regulates the right to own a gun?

Or do you propose to delve into their (private) medical records, to disqualify them? And what about the vast majority of killers and criminals who have never been examined by a psych of either variety? Do they get the right to bear arms?

Far simpler to ban guns by default, and grant a (retractable) license to bear arms, on the basis of need to bear arms.

"I need a gun for self defence" isn't good enough. Hitler started WW2 in "self-defence" -- protecting the rights of Germans living in Poland. Or so he said.

[Bottle]

This quote needs to be posted at the top of every page of these debates.

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

I'd agree with that, but not for the reason you think...

See, the strongest "second amendment" supporters are also typically the most anti-choice politicians. Don't ask me precisely why, there's many theories, but there it is. So I know that when I see a gun-toting Second Amendment pusher politician, odds are he regards me as a stupid slut who can't be trusted to make her own medical decisions.

With respect, that is a hijack.

Not at all. It's a direct response to what that poster was claiming, and actually bears directly on the subject because so many Second Amendment supporters like to make that very same claim...that gun rights are about whether or not individual citizens are "trusted" or whether the government treats us all as children who can't handle guns.

And my point is that's bullshit, because the same politicians who will fight for your right to own guns will also fight against my right to make private medical decisions, so it's got buggerall to do with whether the government "trusts" us.

[BunnySaurus Bugsii]

Intestinal fluids

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

I'd agree with that, but not for the reason you think...

See, the strongest "second amendment" supporters are also typically the most anti-choice politicians. Don't ask me precisely why, there's many theories, but there it is. So I know that when I see a gun-toting Second Amendment pusher politician, odds are he regards me as a stupid slut who can't be trusted to make her own medical decisions.

With respect, that is a hijack.

Not at all. It's a direct response to what that poster was claiming, and actually bears directly on the subject because so many Second Amendment supporters like to make that very same claim...that gun rights are about whether or not individual citizens are "trusted" or whether the government treats us all as children who can't handle guns.

And my point is that's bullshit, because the same politicians who will fight for your right to own guns will also fight against my right to make private medical decisions, so it's got buggerall to do with whether the government "trusts" us.

Um, you and me should not fight. It would only give succour to our enemies.

I too have a very poor impression of those who insist on their "right to bear arms." I consider them citizens who reserve the right to become criminals whenever they choose, and insist on owning the means to become serious criminals. I.e, very suspect citizens.

I too have a very poor impression of those who defend "the rights of the unborn." I consider them (in great part, though in some cases not) hypocrites of human rights, propounding "equal rights" without any consideration of what makes a human "one of us." Like you, I draw the line of a "human right" at the individual's body. Within their body, everything is their right.

But the two issues are not connected. Please don't fight the two as if they are one, or you will fail. And that would make me sad, as a long-time fan of yours.

[Maerngau]

It's already illegal.

Where's the enforcement? How do gangs get guns?

Back to (c) ... what kind of psychological test were you thinking of, to entitle a citizen to a gun license ?

Were you thinking, they should be assessed by a psychologist (or psychiatrist) ... and if so, for how many hours? Before a report of their mental compentency is given to whatever authority regulates the right to own a gun?

Or do you propose to delve into their (private) medical records, to disqualify them? And what about the vast majority of killers and criminals who have never been examined by a psych of either variety? Do they get the right to bear arms?

Far simpler to ban guns by default, and grant a (retractable) license to bear arms, on the basis of need to bear arms.

You may be correct and I would not be sad to see such a system. However I do believe self-defense is a human right. I don't necessarily believe that that needs to entail firearms-on-demand.

[DaWoad]

why isn't there a liscence to buy a gun?

[Parthenon]

Did you even read the scenario? What sort of person brings a dog capable of defending them to the office? How will a piece of paper do anything to stop a man dead set of violence? Same goes to a little spray bottle of hot sauce... Also, you assume that someone with the intentions to commit a crime isn't going to have a concealed semiautomatic weapon in their possession, a very grave assumption to make.

Wait have you ever been peppersprayed? its not like getting hotsauce in your eyes at all. if the guy has a semi-auto anything and is hiding in a dark corner in a parking facility a concealed semi-automatic weapon of your own is only gonna get you killed

No. I have however been watching cops for over a decade and have a relatives in law enforcement and have heard and seen firsthand the ineffectiveness of it on the beat.

Of course not, try to keep up.

Guns make it EASIER to kill people. That's why they were invented. This means that, if more guns are available to potential murderers, more people will get murdered.

agreed you can fight off someone wielding a knife or run away from a pipe bomb wielder ... the same just isn't true of a gun

A person can fight off a knife wielding suspect in a similar fashion to how they would fight off one armed with a gun, however, they will be exposed to far greater risk in the process.

why isn't there a liscence to buy a gun?

There is depending on the weapon...
Most states require pistol permits from the local sheriffs department.

[The_pantless_hero]

More to the point, anyone should be able to get a gun who

a) Is not a convicted felon
b) Can pass a safety test and a test on guns laws in their jurisdiction
c) Is psychologically competent to own a deadly weapon.


The bit about "keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" means this:

Private transfer of guns to people who do NOT meet the requirements above need to be made illegal. And that provision needs to be enforced.

Yet the likes of the NRA is fighting tooth and nail against provisions that would actually ensure those 3 things.