Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[Downinthebend]

j

 

[brandonnash]

Exactly the Newtown shooting was done with legally purchased firearms. If there was an assault weapons ban we would not have had 20 dead kids. Some of the kids had over 10 bullets in them.

I have seen a lot of real evidence and examples that guns are dangerous.

I have seen a lot of real evidence and examples that guns are great tools for self defense.

What I have not seen on this thread are any examples of assault weapons being used in successful self defense.

You have to do a cost benefit analysis when making a decision. With guns as a whole the evidence is unclear. When it comes to AR 15s and other military style weapons the evidence is pretty clear they have done more evil than good.

From what I have read the gun that he had was a bushmaster, even though the coroner said that a .223 was not used. If that is the case then it was in fact an illegal firearm for the owner, which he was not. The state had a ban on assault weapons starting in Oct 1993.

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/12/22/240929/Connecticut-Already-Has-A-Ban-On.aspx

I will have to do some digging to verify, but I believe the bushmaster ar-15 wasn't manufactured until 1994 which would make that gun illegal. Its beside the point though. The guns were stolen. He did not own the guns making them illegal. And I have a slight tinge of doubt also that a retired female kindergarten teacher owned a bushmaster. Weirder things have happened, its just likely.

 

[brandonnash]

You have to do a cost benefit analysis when making a decision. With guns as a whole the evidence is unclear. When it comes to AR 15s and other military style weapons the evidence is pretty clear they have done more evil than good.

How many assault rifle deaths are there in America in a year? They are horribly dangerous so it has to be 10's of thousands right?

Nope.

Long guns, which include all guns with a barrel over 16" in length (shotguns, bolt action rifles, single shot, pump action rifles, etc) account for less than 1000 deaths a year, usually well less than that. In fact the long guns only account for 10% of what handguns did.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

Facts always get in the way of a good argument.


And it has been pointed out earlier in the thread that assault weapons have been used for self defense. The L.A. riots are a good example of that. As far as the good vs evil, the shooting competition world has been relying on variants of the AR as their favorite shooter for years. Is has, is, and will be used in self defense situations before.

All this is completely useless arguing since it is clearly stated in the constitution "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Shall not be infringed. It is unconstitutional what is going on here.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Seriously you are way off. It is a "rocket launcher" that attaches there.

Haha... I knew you'd know the answer, Jade!!
For those not in the know... they're the same gun; a Mini 14. However, one would be banned and one wouldn't be. Funny, huh?

What I have not seen on this thread are any examples of assault weapons being used in successful self defense.

Read more. I brought up the Koreans who defended their shops and themselves during the L.A. Riots. If you would like more examples please let me know... I'll be happy to provide some.

 

[RallySon]

All this is completely useless arguing since it is clearly stated in the constitution "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Shall not be infringed. It is unconstitutional what is going on here.

The argument should truly end here. No matter what interpretation of the 2nd amendment people want to use, the bottom line is this: if we're going to erode a constitutional right because of irrational fear then where does it stop?

Which one do we erode next?

 

[GoIrish41]

All this is completely useless arguing since it is clearly stated in the constitution "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Shall not be infringed. It is unconstitutional what is going on here.

If you are going to quote the constitution, you should use the whole quote:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Weird how people making this argument always leave that first part off. As inconvenient as that first clause is, it seems clear that the drafters of the constitution had something more in mind than the rest of the sentence used alone (as you have used it) would suggest.

I think the supreme court will likely get the opportunity to decide whether or not it is consitutional. It isn't unconsitutional just because you say it is.

 

[Downinthebend]

If you are going to quote the constitution, you should use the whole quote:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Weird how people making this argument always leave that first part off. As inconvenient as that first clause is, it seems clear that the drafters of the constitution had something more in mind than the rest of the sentence used alone (as you have used it) would suggest.

I think the supreme court will likely get the opportunity to decide whether or not it is consitutional. It isn't unconsitutional just because you say it is.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state sets up a truth claim in the constitution. Its ironic that our government doesn't particularly like militias. If we as a society don't value militias we should pass an amendment amending it.

I don't see how the "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" sets up a conditional statement. its not saying that because militias are neccessary, that arms should not be infringed, its laying out one use of the right to bear arms then extorting the government not to infringe arms under any condition.

 

[brandonnash]

If you are going to quote the constitution, you should use the whole quote:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Weird how people making this argument always leave that first part off. As inconvenient as that first clause is, it seems clear that the drafters of the constitution had something more in mind than the rest of the sentence used alone (as you have used it) would suggest.

I think the supreme court will likely get the opportunity to decide whether or not it is consitutional. It isn't unconsitutional just because you say it is.

You are completely right. And because of that I will revise my previous post in this one.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". I don't know why we are still arguing this. It is unconstitutional.

No matter what I say, it is. And no matter what thought or opinion you or anyone else up to and including supreme court justices have I know it is because the constitution says so. Argue as you may. It does not change the reasoning of the creators of this nation.

 

[GoIrish41]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state sets up a truth claim in the constitution. Its ironic that our government doesn't particularly like militias. If we as a society don't value militias we should pass an amendment amending it.

I don't see how the "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" sets up a conditional statement. its not saying that because militias are neccessary, that arms should not be infringed, its laying out one use of the right to bear arms then extorting the government not to infringe arms under any condition.

To me, "well regulated" is the descriptor that trips up your argument. Throughout this thread and all across the media I've seen people arguing against concepts as fundamental as universal background checks, gun registrations, waiting periods, etc., all of which would contribute to anything that approaches gun ownership being "well regulated." Soldiers who are issued firearms do not take them home, they are locked in armories and taken out when needed. I believe this is more what the framers had in mind when they spoke of militias. There is no such mandate for modern American gun owners. Remember, the framers were fresh off of the Revolutionary war when their well regulated militias came together to protect the security of their free state. They would have had no possible way of knowing the distructive power of some of the weapons people have in their homes today, and I find it almost possible to believe that if they had they wouldn't have been a little more specific about their wording.

According to your interpretation, people should be able to keep biological weapons or cruise missiles? -- because that is where your logic leads me. If the tyrants have an arsenal that includes nukes, every citizen should have the right to own their own nukes, as many as they want, because their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I submit that if you agree that I should not be permitted to own my own arsenal of nuclear missiles and a means to launch them then you are half way to agreeing with me that we as a nation have the ability to limit dangerous assault weapons and high capacity magazines. You just need a little nudge to make you a fullblown liberal just like me. next thing you know we will be camping out at Wall Street with all of the other Occupy crowd. lol

 

[GoIrish41]

It does not change the reasoning of the creators of this nation.

And what reasoning is that? I explained in the post above what I thought the reasoning was and think exposed a flaw in your logic -- unless you think my right to own a stealth bomber with a full payload of missiles ""shall not be infringed."

 

[Downinthebend]

To me, "well regulated" is the descriptor that trips up your argument. Throughout this thread and all across the media I've seen people arguing against concepts as fundamental as universal background checks, gun registrations, waiting periods, etc., all of which would contribute to anything that approaches gun ownership being "well regulated." Soldiers who are issued firearms do not take them home, they are locked in armories and taken out when needed. I believe this is more what the framers had in mind when they spoke of militias. There is no such mandate for modern American gun owners. Remember, the framers were fresh off of the Revolutionary war when their well regulated militias came together to protect the security of their free state. They would have had no possible way of knowing the distructive power of some of the weapons people have in their homes today, and I find it almost possible to believe that if they had they wouldn't have been a little more specific about their wording.

According to your interpretation, people should be able to keep biological weapons or cruise missiles? -- because that is where your logic leads me. If the tyrants have an arsenal that includes nukes, every citizen should have the right to own their own nukes, as many as they want, because their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I submit that if you agree that I should not be permitted to own my own arsenal of nuclear missiles and a means to launch them then you are half way to agreeing with me that we as a nation have the ability to limit dangerous assault weapons and high capacity magazines. You just need a little nudge to make you a fullblown liberal just like me. next thing you know we will be camping out at Wall Street with all of the other Occupy crowd. lol

Don't put words into my mouth, and don't use straw man arguments against me (directed at your second paragraph). Lets talk about the language.

"Well regulated miltia"
I'm assuming we won't disagree on what "well" means.
Regulated = means to make regular, I believe it means "organized" here.
Militia- a voluntary organization that a owner of a gun could join.

So good militias that are organized are valuable to the defence of a free society. Cool. The constitution made a truth claim. Nowhere does it say that all gun owners must belong to any militia. I wouldn't oppose back ground checks or whatnot on militias-- as miltias doesn't seem like a right to me.

Have we addressed the first statement sufficiently? If you disagree with me, it would likely be because of a disagreement over conditionality (which appears to me straightforward). Should we continue onto the second statement, or do you disagree with anything I have said.

Also I don't need any nudge to be a liberal. To be liberal means to be free, or like freedom. I'm about as liberal as you can get, although we might disagree on what "liberal" means. I don't believe the government should tell you what religion to be a part of. I don't think the government should tell you what substances to put into your body (as long as it doesn't cause harm to another). I don't think the government should be blowning up brown people. I don't think the goverment should be able to abuse civil liberties... ETC

 

[RallySon]

@GoIrish41
Your argument is a straw man and irrelevant.

You've shown your negative bias towards assault rifles in your last post by calling them dangerous without justification. Would you have called these weapons dangerous before the irrational public outcry?

Can you tell us why these weapons are more dangerous than any other firearm?

 

[GoIrish41]

Don't put words into my mouth, and don't use straw man arguments against me (directed at your second paragraph). Lets talk about the language.

"Well regulated miltia"
I'm assuming we won't disagree on what "well" means.
Regulated = means to make regular, I believe it means "organized" here.
Militia- a voluntary organization that a owner of a gun could join.

So good militias that are organized are valuable to the defence of a free society. Cool. The constitution made a truth claim. Nowhere does it say that all gun owners must belong to any militia. I wouldn't oppose back ground checks or whatnot on militias-- as miltias doesn't seem like a right to me.

Have we addressed the first statement sufficiently? If you disagree with me, it would likely be because of a disagreement over conditionality (which appears to me straightforward). Should we continue onto the second statement, or do you disagree with anything I have said.

Also I don't need any nudge to be a liberal. To be liberal means to be free, or like freedom. I'm about as liberal as you can get, although we might disagree on what "liberal" means. I don't believe the government should tell you what religion to be a part of. I don't think the government should tell you what substances to put into your body (as long as it doesn't cause harm to another). I don't think the government should be blowning up brown people. I don't think the goverment should be able to abuse civil liberties... ETC

didn't mean to put words in your mouth. honestly, I mistakenly thought I was responding to brandon's post. sorry.

moving on, I do not think we addressed the first statement sufficiently. I don't think "regulated" means "organized." I think it means regulated. Do agree that it does not say that a gun owner does have to belong to a militia, but I think it does say that the reason a person should be permitted to own a gun is support the idea of a well regulated militia.

 

[brandonnash]

didn't mean to put words in your mouth. honestly, I mistakenly thought I was responding to brandon's post. sorry.

moving on, I do not think we addressed the first statement sufficiently. I don't think "regulated" means "organized." I think it means regulated. Do agree that it does not say that a gun owner does have to belong to a militia, but I think it does say that the reason a person should be permitted to own a gun is support the idea of a well regulated militia.

What, in your opinion, is a militia used for?

 

[Downinthebend]

didn't mean to put words in your mouth. honestly, I mistakenly thought I was responding to brandon's post. sorry.

moving on, I do not think we addressed the first statement sufficiently. I don't think "regulated" means "organized." I think it means regulated. Do agree that it does not say that a gun owner does have to belong to a militia, but I think it does say that the reason a person should be permitted to own a gun is support the idea of a well regulated militia.

If i'm operating under the assumption that regulated = organized and you say regulated = regulated, I don't know where to go from there, because to me regulated =regulated = oragnized = well run = made regular = regulated lol.

I've already answered and addressed what I would imagine would be the primary point of contention between us: the conditionality.

Because I'm lazy i'll quote meself.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state sets up a truth claim in the constitution. Its ironic that our government doesn't particularly like militias. If we as a society don't value militias we should pass an amendment amending it.

I don't see how the "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" sets up a conditional statement. its not saying that because militias are neccessary, that arms should not be infringed, its laying out one use of the right to bear arms then extorting the government not to infringe arms under any condition."

 

[GoIrish41]

@GoIrish41
Your argument is a straw man and irrelevant.

You've shown your negative bias towards assault rifles in your last post by calling them dangerous without justification. Would you have called these weapons dangerous before the irrational public outcry?

Can you tell us why these weapons are more dangerous than any other firearm?

I think my argument is logic and completely relevant. It does not mention the word gun anywhere in the 2nd amendment, so logic would dictate that as the tyranical government's weapons grow more powerful than the citizens weapons must keep pace, less they not be able to defend themselves.

Not sure there is a person in this country who would disagree with the statement that assault rifles are dangerous. That doesn't really represent any bias. I've been calling these and all other guns dangerous from the for as long as I can remember.

 

[RallySon]

Why is it that when seemingly logical people read the constitution, they see restrictions to the monopolistic power of a government?

But when a progressive/liberal/what-have-you reads it, they see limitations on the rights of man and the government with an unlimited amount of rights over its people.

 

[GoIrish41]

If i'm operating under the assumption that regulated = organized and you say regulated = regulated, I don't know where to go from there, because to me regulated =regulated = oragnized = well run = made regular = regulated lol.

I've already answered and addressed what I would imagine would be the primary point of contention between us: the conditionality.

Because I'm lazy i'll quote meself.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state sets up a truth claim in the constitution. Its ironic that our government doesn't particularly like militias. If we as a society don't value militias we should pass an amendment amending it.

I don't see how the "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" sets up a conditional statement. its not saying that because militias are neccessary, that arms should not be infringed, its laying out one use of the right to bear arms then extorting the government not to infringe arms under any condition."

Regulated in my view of the context means under regulation or rules - like say, the national guard within a state. this is a modern militia in my view.

in your view, the sentence structure lends itself to an intepretation that an example of one possible reason why people should be allowed to bear arms and then making a declarative statement that is broader than the example. Why would they structer the sentence that way? Why would they not give multiple justifications? Why just that one? My thought is because it is essential to the meaning of the sentence and not simply one example of a possilbe list of many.

 

[RallySon]

...if the first amendment were phrased, “A robust distribution of political pamphlets being necessary to the maintenance of a free society, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech,” would anyone seriously argue that such a right would not cover laser printing or online news organizations?

Where is the line drawn?

 

[GoIrish41]

Why is it that when seemingly logical people read the constitution, they see restrictions to the monopolistic power of a government?

But when a progressive/liberal/what-have-you reads it, they see limitations on the rights of man and the government with an unlimited amount of rights over its people.

The government's responsibility to keep its citizens safe (in this case through senisble gun legislation) cannot simply be left to private citizens. There are neighborhoods in cities across this country where people are terrified to go outside at night. What you see as the government imposing itself on people, I see as living up to its responsibility.

 

[RallySon]

You mean those neighborhoods in cities like Chicago and NYC?

 

[GoIrish41]

You mean those neighborhoods in cities like Chicago and NYC?

Sure, and the ones like Oklahoma City, Dallas, and hundreds of other places. Not sure I even understand what you are getting at with this comment.

 

[GoIrish41]

Where is the line drawn?

The first amendment is not phrased that way.

Is the quote you used another example of a strawman that your referred to as irrelevant?

 

[RallySon]

You said there are neighborhoods where people are terrified to go outside.

Some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the US right now reside in Chicago and NYC. Cities that have the highest gun control laws.

 

[RallySon]

The first amendment is not phrased that way.

Is the quote you used another example of a strawman that your referred to as irrelevant?

Exactly my point.

Your argument regarding the 2nd amendment and cruise missiles or nuclear weapons is just as silly. I'm simply showing you some perspective

 

[GoIrish41]

You said there are neighborhoods where people are terrified to go outside.

Some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the US right now reside in Chicago and NYC. Cities that have the highest gun control laws.

And some of the other most dangerous neighborhoods in the country are in other cities that do not. If you are suggesting that local gun control laws are ineffective, I'm with you. Too easy to drive to the next town or the next state where laws aren't as strict. If I'm an illigegal gun dealer, I'm not buying my guns in a city with strict gun laws, I'm going to a place that believes everyone should be issued a gun in kindergarten and shall have it with them at all times. that's where I'm buying my guns. I'm going to sell them in places like NY, Chicago, yes, but I'm going to sell them anywhere I can make money because, illegal or not, I'm in business to make money. I think laws need to be more widespread -- there needs to be federal legislation to be effective in dealing with this issue.

 

[GoIrish41]

Exactly my point.

Your argument regarding the 2nd amendment and cruise missiles or nuclear weapons is just as silly. I'm simply showing you some perspective

Find the word gun in the 2nd amendment ... I'll save you some time, it is not there. Nor is the word pistol, rifle, shotgun, handgun or any other term for a gun. The word "arms" is used. Arms can be anything from a knife to a bow and arrows to a gun to a missile. How my argument silly?

What you quoted was something to the affect that "say the 1st amendment was worded in this way ... " I'm making a logical argument based on the words that ARE there, your exampled had to add words that WEREN'T. How is that the same?

 

[RallySon]

You just said it yourself though.

An illegal gun dealer isn't going to purchase or sell guns legally. So why attempt to add more legislation that doesn't account for illegal weapons?

Hypothetically speaking, how do we go about enforcing this legislation with the amount of gun owners out there who bought and paid for their weapons through legal means? Do we confiscate? Is this retroactive? It's a steep slope that totally ignores statistics.

 

[GoIrish41]

You just said it yourself though.

An illegal gun dealer isn't going to purchase or sell guns legally. So why attempt to add more legislation that doesn't account for illegal weapons?

Hypothetically speaking, how do we go about enforcing this legislation with the amount of gun owners out there who bought and paid for their weapons through legal means? Do we confiscate?

Actually what I said was that they would purchase the guns legally in places where there are loose gun laws and sell them illegally in places where there aren't. This is why I'm suggesting federal laws would be much more effective than local ones.

I'm not going to rehash a thousand suggestions that were made throughout this thread, but there are a lot of things that could be done -- registrations, insurance, etc.

 

[DSully1995]

You just said it yourself though.

An illegal gun dealer isn't going to purchase or sell guns legally. So why attempt to add more legislation that doesn't account for illegal weapons?

Hypothetically speaking, how do we go about enforcing this legislation with the amount of gun owners out there who bought and paid for their weapons through legal means? Do we confiscate? Is this retroactive? It's a steep slope that totally ignores statistics.

Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.

The ''criminals'' are getting the guns from crooked dealers, who would (by seeking profit) also sell to you. In this sense what secures purchase that you do would also affect the criminals.

Although it seems that the guns might be bought by people without any crime background and sold/given to the criminals since like Jadebrecks posted, 80% of inmates that own guns have gotten theirs from famly/friends, streetbuys or illegal means.