History, for our "gun grabbing" friends...

That's an interesting statement from the guy who claims I am "personally responsible for the Sandy Hook shooting".
Also interesting given that you routinely talk about how guns are used for "self defense", which is exactly what the shooter in that story is claiming - he had to defend himself from an unarmed woman who was getting into her car by shooting her in the neck.

 

Maybe that test should include an IQ test, and the ability to find sources about a topic that are objective...
I've provided multiple different sources that disprove your NRA-only sources, but you choose to believe that everyone except the NRA lies...?

 

Hello Pot, kettle calling.

 

well, at least you didn't deny it.............. gotta appreciate a feller that bears his guilt properly

[video=youtube;BSPhC916GQM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BSPhC916GQM[/video]

[video=youtube;kXkBbAdySNc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kXkBbAdySNc[/video]

[video=youtube;cN_cRm8qsC8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cN_cRm8qsC8[/video]

thousands of these out there..............you going to personally be responsible for my safety from dicks like this, or the guy that robs me at gunpoint, or breaks into my home, or a massively over-reaching government? thought not..............
Your paranoia of firearms is astounding.........maybe even overshadowing my intense mistrust if the Lib agenda

 

Three questions:
- How long have you owned firearms?
- How many times have these guys been in your home while you were home?
- Of those times, how many of them did you get the opportunity to shoot?

See where I'm going with this?

Your paranoia of OTHER PEOPLE is astounding....... maybe even overshadowing my intense mistrust of the system that intentionally leaves loopholes open so criminals can buy guns, so that you have to buy guns to be safe, so that they get more money to protect the loopholes, so that criminals can buy more guns, so that you have to buy more guns, so that they get more money....

 

round logic ..pretty much goes nowhere quick..............
I have owned for 45 years. Never had one stolen or used one to commit any crime. I have used my sidearm on one occasion against an armed mugger who attacked my wife and me. I have shot all of them and still do on a regular basis. I keep my firearms clean and all but one unloaded unless I am using it. They are inaccessible to you, even if you managed to get into my house. I have insurance (under homeowners) on them in case of theft, altho not likely, l'd report them to the pigs because I would be required to do so for filing a claim, not because of some idiotic law.

 

So you've actually used your firearms once in 45 years for the purpose you say it was intended to serve (protection)...
On the basis of that average, what are the odds you'll live long enough to use it/them again?

Whereas YOU might keep the weapons safely (good for you!), you have to admit that there are many people who don't. If those folks get the same level of use out of their firearms that you have, it seems they'd be creating more risk for their families than they avoid.
Wouldn't it make sense to teach those folks how to be responsible with their weapons (as you seem to be), preferably before they accidentally or negligently cause or allow someone to be injured or killed?

 

It is even worse than that; I have noticed the Right would rather reduce social spending for the least wealthy instead of eliminating our wasteful, War on Drugs, while claiming we need better access to Arms, due to that form of Prohibition.

 

I half agree with this as a very generalization. That being said, keep in mind that it's mostly red states who take more in tax dollars (in the form of social programs) than they generate in taxes. These also tend to be the states with the lowest overall education levels and many have high crime on a per-capita basis. Basically a third-world country within America. Some extreme right politicians act just as politicians in third-world countries do as well, but that's a whole other conversation not suited to this particular thread.

 

I have been arguing this point for at least a year or so, it is why I bring it up. You may want to keep it in mind in your own arguments and test the arguments of the right regarding this observation.

 

the state used to offer, through public schools, hunter safety courses. That has been some time back. I cannot offer correlation or causation, but it has been my overview over the years, that since they stopped teaching firearm safety in highschools, there has been a climb in crimes committed with guns.
I've always maintained a healthy respect for firearms. I equate firearms to wild animals, handle with extreme care and always be aware of your environment. Seek alternatives as time allows. Always expect regret, regardless, guns are a part of our lives. Some would have us focus on and enhance the fears of guns, as opposed teaching respect and safety. Fear costs lives. A healthy respect through education and familiarization, and not indoctrination into fear.
There are stupid people out there and there's not much that can be done about them. Smart people do stupid things. How are all the programs being offered going to work without government pressure? It sure wont stop people from doing stupid (*)(*)(*)(*) anymore than it will stop the broken-minded from committing the heinous and unthinkable.
These "programs" would shift the sole responsibility of all of the guns upon the responsible owners.
I am a responsible owner, thanks for acknowledging that it might be possible.

 

Prohibition a stupid idea? Certainly I agree. The government now wishes to prohibit Americans from a number of firearms and limit magazine capacity. Prohibition, as history shows, is a foolish idea again.

Moderate=compromiser? If it is surrendering rights that make a moderate discussion than moderate=appeaser. Pre-WWII England appeased Germany and it hurt the English people, among others.

As the aggressor looks to usurp the private property of others it must be met by those focused on retaining their rights for themselves and their posterity.

 

Fairness Fairies wind up at the city morgue.

The only way you can deal with the enemies of the human race is by using guns and not letting the government protect those committing crimes.

 

Prohibition was at the extreme end of regulation. That was why it was a stupid idea. Most reflexive actions by governments in moving straight to prohibition rather than regulation (for example see the various discussions on controlled substances) are stupid. In the case of firearms control laws though, it is not a move straight to prohibition but a re-think on regulation. I'm not suggesting that you or anyone else here would hold to a view that there should no regulation of private firearms ownership and possession and so on. If that is true then we're only in dispute as to the extent of regulation.

 

Prohibition was legislated and passed into law. The way of all successful amendments and law.

Those for gun control held up the mass murder of innocent Americans (Sandy Hook/Aurora shootings) as the reason to pursue the disarmament of Americans. Which proposed legislation would have stopped these horrors?

Where does the attack on constitutional rights stop?

Consider the reason for the Second Amendment, as a deterrent or a defense to/from foreign or domestic tyranny, before answering.

 

Thank you for sharing your version of a moral of "goodwill toward men".

 

I believe gun lovers are being disingenuous in their declamations regarding gun control. Gun control is not gun Prohibition since the social Power to Prohibit forms forms of Commerce among the several States has the distinction of being repealed as a bad idea in modern times.

I believe controversial Arms should be regulated and relegated to Class III, simply because our federal Congress has no longer Delegated any social Power to Prohibit, even controversial forms of private property.

Why so much drama over "assault rifles"?

 

That which you call for relegating to another classification has been around for over a century. In all your wisdom why do you believe that a century old technology and use must be further regulated to put it further from the reach of the citizen of the day? As you promote taking liberty from today's citizen, what do you see as the difference of the citizen of 100 or 50 years ago from his contemporary of today?

 

They will stop riots, that's why. Pistols have a short range and single-shot rifles aren't accurate enough to stop the mobs dead in their tracks. Ask the Koreans in LA.

- - - Updated - - -

Good Will Hunting

 

From one perspective and in that alternative, simply because some Arms are controversial for defense of self and property in "urban" settings.

From another perspective and in that alternative, "Owning a class 3 weapon (machine gun / silencer) is relatively simple. There are several rules and regulations that individuals must comply with. They are very simple and one should not be intimidated by paperwork."

 

Yes I know about the Volstead Act. And I know how law is made. But what has that got to do with my post?

Your link between legislation and the mass shootings is a bit disingenuous. You know as well as I do that the power of legislation is always limited by circumstance. Aside from that the various causes of the mass shootings have to be analysed and from that analysis, hopefully, policy can be built which attempts to remove those causes or at least ameliorate the harm. Firearms control legislation is one of those policy instruments. I think we can agree that it is impossible to legislate against all harm. My view though is that it is possible to legislate to reduce harm and for me that is the point of firearms control legislation, the reduction of potential harm caused by the private ownership of firearms. And that's where I return to my argument that it isn't a zero-sum case. Totally obliterating the right to private ownership of firearms would be really, really stupid. But having no regulatory control at all would be really, really stupid. Somewhere along that line which rests between the two really, really stupid extremes are the desirable ranges of regulation.

I don't see an attack on Constitutional rights. I don't want to play word games here but it may be that there are no such things as “Constitutional rights”. As I understand it, rights are innate and the Constitution is about how government must be limited so as to minimise the infringement of those innate rights and certainly to force government to use due process and show good cause when those rights have to be infringed.

The reason for the Second Amendment is, as you know, in current dispute. I won't go over the arguments again but in summary some argue that the Second exists so that the nation at the time of the passing of the Second Amendment, through its composite bodies, the states, could rely on a military force composed of members of the states' militias. Regardless it doesn't matter since the US Sup Ct handed down Heller which was part of the shift to abolish the idea that private ownership of firearms was linked to an effective militia. That had to happen. Given that there is, and has not been for some time, the need for militia for the US and its component states to defend from domestic or foreign threat, the argument for private firearms ownership didn't have a legal leg to stand on and stood to be abolished by state legislation which, I think, would have been held to be constitutional if the narrow, militia requirement interpretation of the Second Amendment had prevailed. In a more liberal Supreme Court that would have been the case I believe. But then I doubt if any state legislature would have wanted to have committed career suicide by proposing such unworkable and undesirable (see my views on the issue of prohibition in general) legislation.

 

Our Second Amendment clearly enumerates what is Necessary to the security of a free State and why those Individuals are exempted from State laws regarding gun control in order to keep and bear those Arms which may be necessary to suppress Insurrections and repel invasions.

 

Hang on, you're saying there were fewer gun-related crimes back when people used to receive safety training... But if I raise the idea of requiring safety training, you start calling me a "collaborator" and saying I'm "personally responsible for Sandy Hook"...? I don't understand this.

It seems to me that a lot of folks obtain guns because they are indoctrinated into fear... Fear of other people with guns, fear of an imaginary enemy, fear of wild conspiracy theories, fear of criminals they are unlikely to ever encounter... I'm saying that fear isn't necessary.
I'm not saying we should have some form of gun control because I'm afraid of guns, I'm saying it because I'm not afraid of my own shadow.

 

I am not against gun safety courses. I believe anyone who has a firearm, should take firearms safety. However, I don't think it should be regulated by government in any way shape or form. I, like you, do not trust this government and the over-reaching of authority and power. We have seen and will continue to see corruption and criminal activity from the bastards in DC. It could be left up to the shop owners to encourage training for purchases. Other than maybe some slip of paper, once training is complete, paperwork can be destroyed
Once rules and regulations are applied to what's left of our 2nd A, they will regulate that Right, right out of existence. I trust that before I trust that our government is benign.

 

I understand what you're saying, but having some guy behind the register "encourage" you to attend a safety course really isn't gonna do a damn thing unless you were planning on taking one anyway.
The people who most need to take these courses are the ones who are so cocksure they believe nothing bad could ever happen to them now that they're armed.

The issue, as I see it, is that you can either trust government bureaucracy or you can trust EVERY gun owner.
I don't like the idea of trusting the government, but there hasn't been a tyrant take-over for the last few centuries. It's also not likely there'll be one soon, since Republicans and Democrats fight like cats and dogs. I mean, if you were a tyrant, do you really think the opposition would help you take over - or would they scream their fool heads off the instant you stepped out of line? Seems the checks and balances put in place by our forefathers have worked better than they hoped; and I trust them more than I trust every kid who thinks he's going to go fight crime by carrying a firearm he has no idea how to use safely.