Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[phgreek]

So let's have an author clear it up

see, thats a contemporary writing of sorts...which supports my view of the world...also look at the VA and PA constitutions...BUt then look at article 6 of the articles of confederation...the 1st US constitution really...seems to not speak to citizens rights, but speaks clealry to state level organized militias...."Each state must maintain a "well-regulated and disciplined" militia, and a sufficient amount of supplies for that militia" ....sound familiar?

was this just lifted, and mashed with Mason's intent for citizens right to bear arms..???

...common interpretation of the 6th article was that the states formed militias with the intent of defending against enemies from within and without...they worried about England and their own national government...thus I think....the origin of the notion that the right to bear arms is intended, or at least one intent, is for defense against national government tyrany. If so, that "Tyrany" intent arrived in the constution by way of words once used to justify state militias...unless Mason and co. meant it to transfer to people, as one would think from his contemporary writings...???

I can see a path where Mason saw the logic in arming against national tyrany, and used those words from Article 6 to signify that, but then transfered that intent to people. I just wish he would have said something about self defense, and equated the militia to all people in light of what Militia meant in article 6. He and his cohorts didn't do it very clearly...

I have a theory there...I can see him using phrases that were recognized from the constitution's precurser to aid in its adoption...as well I think it was meant to be vague...so our first politicians could "sell it" as they had to in their states...it was written to have wiggle room...at least thats my read on it.

I know what I believe, and I know what I want it to mean...but I understand there being serious questions...I don't think these questions ever go away.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Last time I'm doing this.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

They are saying is it is necessary to remain free from all sources including your own government you must have a well regulated militia. Otherwise what the government says goes. Why? Because you can't stop it.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

This part says the government can't take those guns. Why? So you can form a well regulated militia. That includes if it isn't our own military. If crap were to every go south and we had to have a another civil war I will not be standing there with my Ruger 10/22 or heck by then even that could be illegal I will be standing there with a far less superior AR-15 to try and save our country.

 

[JadeBrecks]

I think after this post I am going to bow out for awhile possibly permanently. I can only say the same thing over and over and over again so many times. People are calling for the ban on one dangerous thing but could care less about dangerous things that kill more people a year than the dangerous evil "assault weapons". For some reason now anything that was in the constitution as interpreted before must now be defended and shown how we "need" it to people who will not accept our side of the argument no matter how clear we make it. People pushing for less guns don't look at the fact that these shootings happen if areas people have already been disarmed in and its not working (schools, a particular movie theater, or a military base). They look to Europe and claim their gun violence has gone down when their violent crimes have gone up more than the gun crimes went down. They refuse to look at countries like Mexico that have made all but .22 rifles illegal. They also refuse to think of the fact that the government could become corrupt to the point that it refuses to release power without a population that could attempt a resistance. (see Stalin, Castro, Hitler or almost any other dictatorship) Come whatever may you aren't taking my guns and all you will accomplish is making law abiding citizen illegal. That is my side or the argument if you want to argue it look back I have expanded on each point in depth several times.

I thank you guys for having these good clean debates. Thanks for not stooping to name calling and low tactics like that. Debate all you want, don't take it personal, remember we are all ND brothers here, and GO IRISH!

 

[irishpat183]

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.

So we have to prove to you and others that the things we own are ok?


And I'm sure you could say that a lot of things have done more harm than good....

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So we have to prove to you and others that the things we own are ok?


And I'm sure you could say that a lot of things have done more harm than good....

Adding to that, heart disease is the #1 killer in the US. It's a shame our imperial president can't ban certain foods, drinks, restaurants, etc. If he did, there would be no obesity and we'd be one step closer to the utopia we've been hearing about since 2007.

 

[BobD]

You pro gun guys give up and throw your guns in the smelter yet?

 

[GoIrish41]

Adding to that, heart disease is the #1 killer in the US. It's a shame our imperial president can't ban certain foods, drinks, restaurants, etc. If he did, there would be no obesity and we'd be one step closer to the utopia we've been hearing about since 2007.

you really going to try to turn this into a conversation about fatty foods and the incompetence of the president? if you think you have a good argument, why jump to topics that have nothing to do with the point we're talking about?

 

[brandonnash]

You pro gun guys give up and throw your guns in the smelter yet?

Just as soon as you libs give up your free speech rights.

you really going to try to turn this into a conversation about fatty foods and the incompetence of the president? if you think you have a good argument, why jump to topics that have nothing to do with the point we're talking about?

Its simple because of how ridiculous it is to think about taking away a right. We have no clearly stated right to eat certain foods or drive cars or wear certain clothing, yet we are debating, as a nation, something that has been afforded to us as a right. If a republican majority congress brings up legislation to silence media of all liberal slant in the media what would happen? And further from that to imprison all who do not obey that? You and half the people in this thread would go insane. It only gets real when someone is attacking something that you believe in. I believe that free speech is one of the greatest things in this country, even though at times I would like to silence some sources. I wouldn't do it though. Because it is part of our country and the way it was laid out over 300 years ago is still very much valid today.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

You pro gun guys give up and throw your guns in the smelter yet?

Not a chance. Have the thugs and criminals turned in or registered their guns yet? Has Obama passed legislation requiring background checks before they purchase illegal guns? Have "assault weapons" become a leading killer in our society?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

you really going to try to turn this into a conversation about fatty foods and the incompetence of the president? if you think you have a good argument, why jump to topics that have nothing to do with the point we're talking about?

I've put more than my two cents into this gun argument, and similary to Jade, you can only point to the Constitution and citizens' rights so many times before it becomes pointless.

If you can't see the relevance between the comparisons I made above, that's a you problem, not a me problem.

 

[GoIrish41]

Just as soon as you libs give up your free speech rights.







Its simple because of how ridiculous it is to think about taking away a right. We have no clearly stated right to eat certain foods or drive cars or wear certain clothing, yet we are debating, as a nation, something that has been afforded to us as a right. If a republican majority congress brings up legislation to silence media of all liberal slant in the media what would happen? And further from that to imprison all who do not obey that? You and half the people in this thread would go insane. It only gets real when someone is attacking something that you believe in. I believe that free speech is one of the greatest things in this country, even though at times I would like to silence some sources. I wouldn't do it though. Because it is part of our country and the way it was laid out over 300 years ago is still very much valid today.

what rights are being taken away? we are simply talking about placing common sense limitations on those rights. don't pretend that that is some unprecidented overreach of government. legislators have put restrictions on rights -- even constitutionally stated rights -- since there was a constitution. Lets use your free speech example, there are absolutely limitations on the right to free speech. I'm sure you've heard the expression stating that you can't call out fire in a crowded movie house. That has been a limitation of free speech for at least as long as theaters were referred to as movie houses. similarly, you can't use your right to free speech to slander someone. that is also a limitation of a right. go into a crowded public place and just start screaming profanities at the top of your lungs and see what will happen. When you get arrested, be sure to let the officers know that you are simply exercising your right to free speech and let me know if they let you go back to screaming profanities. if the right to free speech can be limited by government, why is it that there cannot be limitations on the right to bear arms? you and others in this thread act as if this particular right is immune from regulation and, I would argue, from common sense.

Oh, and what exactly was laid out over three hundred years ago? This country is only 236 years old and its constitution is only 231. The colonies were under British rule 300 years ago.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

You pro gun guys give up and throw your guns in the smelter yet?

I'm overwhelmingly on the "pro gun" side of the debate, but I've never owned a gun and don't really ever plan on it.

I just like living in a neighborhood where my neighbors have guns, and people think I have one too.

 

[chicago51]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XdKj920Xvqk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ickythump1225]

Just as soon as you libs give up your free speech rights.







Its simple because of how ridiculous it is to think about taking away a right. We have no clearly stated right to eat certain foods or drive cars or wear certain clothing, yet we are debating, as a nation, something that has been afforded to us as a right. If a republican majority congress brings up legislation to silence media of all liberal slant in the media what would happen? And further from that to imprison all who do not obey that? You and half the people in this thread would go insane. It only gets real when someone is attacking something that you believe in. I believe that free speech is one of the greatest things in this country, even though at times I would like to silence some sources. I wouldn't do it though. Because it is part of our country and the way it was laid out over 300 years ago is still very much valid today.

Oh lordy...no one is talking about talking guns away. The whole idea that "jack booted government thugs are going to raid your house and take your guns away by directive of the evil Obama" is a TEA Party talking point/fantasy in order to scare people and win support. We're talking about certain limitations and measures being put on gun sales and gun accessories, not banning guns. There are restrictions on most all our rights, my right to freedom of speech is denied right at the point where I start making threats. The whole idea of laws and rules in a civilized society isn't new or revolutionary.

As an aside I'm a gun owner myself and I work in law enforcement. While I'm in support of some form of gun control I concede the problem isn't inherently guns, it's our violence saturated culture.

 

[chicago51]

Gabby Giffords (former Congresswomen that was shot in the head) is example the kind of great courage this country needs to end gun violence.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/thOhDNfyvRc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

We hear Wayne Lapierre and others use fear to promote their point of views. We hear things like the only way to stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns. This women here has a lot more courage than any of those people.

What great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King taught us is that the answer to violence is non violence. Violence or the threat of violence is not the answer.

My hope is that people will let go of their fear. Fear that has no evidence in its defense. Yes there is evidence that guns can be a tool for self defense but I have yet to see any examples of were an AK 47, AR 15, or any military style assault weapons has been used successfully in a home invasion.

It is time this country started acted like the "home of the brave". We as a nation need to giving into the fear created by the NRA and stand up and say that we are not afraid anymore.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

The 1st Amendment argument is brought up often so I'd like to talk about it. When is your freedom of speech "denied" or "taken away?" When it becomes detrimental to those around you; slander, threats, yelling fire at a movie house... etc. However, no one has actually taken that right away from you. Instead, they enforce penalties when someone uses that freedom to harm others... penalties that are enforced on the perpetrator and no one else. It's a reactive response, not a preemptive attack. I know what liberals are thinking... guns kill people and we also need prevention, not just punishment. And I agree, but, by outlawing these weapons you're attacking the rights of many because of the actions of few. The right to free speech is no different than the right to bear arms in that it should not be infringed due to the actions of those few who seek to use it in a harmful manner. Instead of trying to ban certain guns they should put that time and money into something more constructive rather than something destructive.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I think we could find a lot more common ground if we framed this in terms of a state issue rather than federal. Gun culture varies wildly by geography.

 

[palinurus]

Gabby Giffords (former Congresswomen that was shot in the head) is example the kind of great courage this country needs to end gun violence.


We hear Wayne Lapierre and others use fear to promote their point of views. We hear things like the only way to stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns. This women here has a lot more courage than any of those people.

What great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King taught us is that the answer to violence is non violence. Violence or the threat of violence is not the answer.

My hope is that people will let go of their fear. Fear that has no evidence in its defense. Yes there is evidence that guns can be a tool for self defense but I have yet to see any examples of were an AK 47, AR 15, or any military style assault weapons has been used successfully in a home invasion.

It is time this country started acted like the "home of the brave". We as a nation need to giving into the fear created by the NRA and stand up and say that we are not afraid anymore.

With respect, the essence of the argument of Gabby Giffords and some of the parents of Newtown is one of fear, too. Both sides have their "fears": the gun regulators fear the number of guns and their inability to control who has them; the gun rights people fear an inability to defend themselves or a threat of tyranny. If you think it's "fear" just on one side, I don't think you are being objective. And I don't see gun restrictors as any more "courageous" than the gun rights people, particularly. In fact, you could as easily argue it takes more courage to vote AGAINST restrictions after the high emotionalism in the political sphere following Newtown.

Frankly, it's easy to quote Gandhi and MLK, and I consider King a great man in many ways, myself. (Gandhi doesn't do much for me, but that's another subject.) But, while we need people to encourage peace, as the guy says in Ben Hur, "Baltazar is a good man, but until all men are like him, we must keep our swords bright." The peace we all want isn't being destroyed by the lawabiding people who want firearms to protect their families and their security.

 

[DomerInHappyValley]

if you agree that the father shared some fault in this incident (and by extension many, many incidents similar to this) ... If you agree that he shared some fault for keeping a loaded gun in the house that he didn't have control of ... then we agree on more than it first appeared. These are the elements of responsibility of gun ownership that I am talking about. Now, it is clear that I might take this further, perhaps much further, than you but we can agree in principal. Given that experience I described, do you feel strongly enough about the responsibility of the father that you believe he should be punished for being an irresponsible gun owner? That is my logical next step -- one that might compel gun owners like him and many, many others across this country to become more responsibile at the risk of some penalty or punishment?

But as the laws stand now the parent in that situation would already be responsible for the actions of his minor child.
A situation like you described happened where I live now 2 houses up from me.
The parent was charged and ultimately convicted of negligent homicide.

For the guys saying you can't say fire in a theater argument.
That doesn't hold water.
First because you won't be arrested for saying fire you will be arrested for creating a public disturbance.
Not for what you said but because of the results of your words
If you really want to apply that analogy to the second amendment go right ahead.
I won't be arrested no matter what gun I own.
But arrested for the actions I choose to use my gun for.
I'm all for that

 

[Irish Houstonian]

There aren't many statistics for defense against tyranny either.

Me: 2

Wife: 17423

 

[phgreek]

Me: 2

Wife: 17423

Damn...repped you for the want of state solutions, but wanted to for this as well...

Same at my house....

 

[In Lou I Trust]

We hear Wayne Lapierre and others use fear to promote their point of views. We hear things like the only way to stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns. This women here has a lot more courage than any of those people.

Not to diminish her accomplishment but how is recovering from a gun shot to the head more courage than protecting and defending your loved ones during a burglary?

I have yet to see any examples of were an AK 47, AR 15, or any military style assault weapons has been used successfully in a home invasion.

As far as this goes... are you ****ing serious? I've brought up the LA Riots twice before this and you choose to ignore it. Read the ****ing thread before posting the same bullshit multiple times!!

 

[irishpat183]

Gabby Giffords (former Congresswomen that was shot in the head) is example the kind of great courage this country needs to end gun violence.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/thOhDNfyvRc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

We hear Wayne Lapierre and others use fear to promote their point of views. We hear things like the only way to stop bad guys with guns are good guys with guns. This women here has a lot more courage than any of those people.

What great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King taught us is that the answer to violence is non violence. Violence or the threat of violence is not the answer.

My hope is that people will let go of their fear. Fear that has no evidence in its defense. Yes there is evidence that guns can be a tool for self defense but I have yet to see any examples of were an AK 47, AR 15, or any military style assault weapons has been used successfully in a home invasion.

It is time this country started acted like the "home of the brave". We as a nation need to giving into the fear created by the NRA and stand up and say that we are not afraid anymore.

Good lord. And we need to stand up to the bleeding hearts that are legislating for the few at the cost of the many....Like the health care bill.

Talk about "fear". People dying in the streets....mass shooting at every turn......So give up your guns, OR ELSE.


For every NRA, theres a PETA or some other "Earth is dying" group that is using fear to drive their agenda.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

Chicago... you don't even have to read this since that seems too difficult for you. It's a video!
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE&desktop_uri=/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE

 

[chicago51]

Chicago... you don't even have to read this since that seems too difficult for you. It's a video!
YouTube

I am so glad to know you can debate an issue without taking it personal.

 

[In Lou I Trust]

I am so glad to know you can debate an issue without taking it personal.

It has nothing to do with taking it personally. You've made the same argument at least 3 times even after the LA Riot example was given by myself and rehashed by another poster. You do this discussion a disservice when you fail to read the responses to your questions while arguing the same point.

 

[DSully1995]

There aren't many statistics for defense against tyranny either.

You have the most powerful military in the world by far, good relations with most countries and goddamn political system built to absolutely prevent the overtaking of the government by one single party/person, you dont need to fear tyranny sir, relax a bit.

 

[palinurus]

You have the most powerful military in the world by far, good relations with most countries and goddamn political system built to absolutely prevent the overtaking of the government by one single party/person, you dont need to fear tyranny sir, relax a bit.

With respect, I think it a wise course to always fear tyranny. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

 

[DSully1995]

With respect, I think it a wise course to always fear tyranny. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

K lemme rephrase, sure fear tyranny, but I refuse to count that as a serious argument against gun control

 

[chicago51]

It has nothing to do with taking it personally. You've made the same argument at least 3 times even after the LA Riot example was given by myself and rehashed by another poster. You do this discussion a disservice when you fail to read the responses to your questions while arguing the same point.

So you had to go back 20 years for an example.

In regards to the link. How many bullets did it take the kid to shoot the introduder?