Opinions/Discussions on Guns

[irishpat183]

And why shouldn't states be able to establish a religion?

 

[ACamp1900]

Irishpat is just scared they'll make super soakers illegal... how's he ever gonna get a woman wet again???...


bada tish.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Thing is...citizens have no use, and cannot afford, nor would know how to operate, a nuclear weapon. Besides, you'd be taking yourself out in the process.

Let's stick to firearms.

Are you saying Bill Gates couldn't afford a tactical nuke if it were 100 percent legal? What's the dividing line between a weapon system a citizen has "no use, can not afford, nor would know how to use?" We live in a world where private companies routinely launch rockets into space...surely there has to be some sort of red line?

 

[Grahambo]

Irishpat is just scared they'll make super soakers illegal... how's he ever gonna get a woman wet again???...


bada tish.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Oh damn, you don't really believe that states should be able to establish religions to you?!

...

I don't know about "should", but before the 1920's it was perfectly legal for a state to adopt an official religion. Up until that point every federal court said that the 1st Amendment didn't apply to the states.

 

[ACamp1900]

lol...

 

[DSully1995]

Oh damn, you don't really believe that states should be able to establish religions to you?!

Do you think that citizens should be able to have any weapon? AR-15, I assume you say yes. Nuclear weapons, I assume you say no. Where's the grey area? Tanks, submarines, and jets?

The reason that amendment made perfect sense is that one person could barely fire a round a minute. Today, if all arms are on the table, you could destroy whole cities in theory. It doesn't take much to kill hundreds of people with the right training. If nothing else, cognizance of the advancements in military technology makes it impossible not to at least reevaluate the purpose and future of that amendment.

+1. To expect a cosntitution to last forever is to expect a grown man to wear the same clothes he did when he was a child.

 

[4irishnation]

 

[4irishnation]

 

[Buster Bluth]

Because when the law was formed that figurative car could only go 5mph, now that car can be 100ft wide and drive a 1,000mph, and cause all different kinds of mayhem when the crazies drive drunk.

A better question, why does the GOP feel that IDs should be required to vote, but a simple background check shouldn't be required before you sell someone an assault weapon? Seems a little silly.

 

[greyhammer90]

 

[Buster Bluth]

This thread is not about $5 milkshakes.

 

[greyhammer90]

This thread is not about $5 milkshakes.

Lotta awkward silence though...

 

[4irishnation]

A question to you then. Would it be ok if hard liquors were prohibited?

 

[chubler]

Just throwing in my two cents on a few things that've come up recently in this thread:

people fought from '39 until '08 about whether the right to bear arms was individual or collective (e.g. militia), even though Miller was fairly clear that the guns had to be "reasonably related" or something like that to the maintenance of a militia. After 5 years, that debate is far from over, in my opinion. Should get interesting if the supreme court becomes less conservative as justices move in and out...

also, I personally prefer to view things from a more pragmatic stance: I don't think anyone has any real use for a high-capacity magazine, except for killing people. I'm personally willing to sacrifice some slight enjoyment in my target shooting, or convenience in hunting (realistically, whens the last time you shot ten times at one animal) in order to make it slightly more difficult for crazies to kill people. My personal stance on that.

Lastly, I don't think an analogy between guns and hard liquor is valid, Irishnation. Especially handguns and assault rifles.
Hard Liquor has an intended purpose- human consumption for enjoyment and (allegedly) nutritional purposes. It has a side effect- sometimes people do stupid things and kill other people.
Handguns and assault rifles have an intended purpose- killing people. In my opinion, there's no real "sporting" purpose for either of those weapons. You can buy it for the purpose of defense, but the reason it's effective at defending you is because of its designed purpose- causing death as efficiently as possible. Neurotoxins are the only other example I can think of designed to cause death. What's the difference between neurotoxins, which are some of the most highly regulated substance on earth, and guns?

 

[brandonnash]

Just throwing in my two cents on a few things that've come up recently in this thread:

people fought from '39 until '08 about whether the right to bear arms was individual or collective (e.g. militia), even though Miller was fairly clear that the guns had to be "reasonably related" or something like that to the maintenance of a militia. After 5 years, that debate is far from over, in my opinion. Should get interesting if the supreme court becomes less conservative as justices move in and out...

also, I personally prefer to view things from a more pragmatic stance: I don't think anyone has any real use for a high-capacity magazine, except for killing people. I'm personally willing to sacrifice some slight enjoyment in my target shooting, or convenience in hunting (realistically, whens the last time you shot ten times at one animal) in order to make it slightly more difficult for crazies to kill people. My personal stance on that.

Lastly, I don't think an analogy between guns and hard liquor is valid, Irishnation. Especially handguns and assault rifles.
Hard Liquor has an intended purpose- human consumption for enjoyment and (allegedly) nutritional purposes. It has a side effect- sometimes people do stupid things and kill other people.
Handguns and assault rifles have an intended purpose- killing people. In my opinion, there's no real "sporting" purpose for either of those weapons. You can buy it for the purpose of defense, but the reason it's effective at defending you is because of its designed purpose- causing death as efficiently as possible. Neurotoxins are the only other example I can think of designed to cause death. What's the difference between neurotoxins, which are some of the most highly regulated substance on earth, and guns?

Have you never heard of 3 gun competitions? Or sporting clays for that matter? Some of the shotguns made for clays and 3 gun hold more than 10 shells. I enjoy shooting. I enjoy shooting more than 10 times without reloading. Same as booze. Personal enjoyment. Any dumb *** can abuse either.

 

[JadeBrecks]

Just throwing in my two cents on a few things that've come up recently in this thread:

people fought from '39 until '08 about whether the right to bear arms was individual or collective (e.g. militia), even though Miller was fairly clear that the guns had to be "reasonably related" or something like that to the maintenance of a militia. After 5 years, that debate is far from over, in my opinion. Should get interesting if the supreme court becomes less conservative as justices move in and out...

also, I personally prefer to view things from a more pragmatic stance: I don't think anyone has any real use for a high-capacity magazine, except for killing people. I'm personally willing to sacrifice some slight enjoyment in my target shooting, or convenience in hunting (realistically, whens the last time you shot ten times at one animal) in order to make it slightly more difficult for crazies to kill people. My personal stance on that.

Lastly, I don't think an analogy between guns and hard liquor is valid, Irishnation. Especially handguns and assault rifles.
Hard Liquor has an intended purpose- human consumption for enjoyment and (allegedly) nutritional purposes. It has a side effect- sometimes people do stupid things and kill other people.
Handguns and assault rifles have an intended purpose- killing people. In my opinion, there's no real "sporting" purpose for either of those weapons. You can buy it for the purpose of defense, but the reason it's effective at defending you is because of its designed purpose- causing death as efficiently as possible. Neurotoxins are the only other example I can think of designed to cause death. What's the difference between neurotoxins, which are some of the most highly regulated substance on earth, and guns?

You can think all you want but we do need the 10+ round magazines. Like mentioned above I don't want to have to reload every ten rounds when I am recreational shooting. I also want to have the capacity if we were to lose rule of law. We could lose it temporarily like New Orleans after Katrina or heaven forbid something longer. I don't want to stand outside with my bolt action rifle because that is my only choice let. If you give the gun control advocates an inch they will take a mile. You limit magazines to 10 rounds they will push for 7, 5, 3, then 1. Why? Because limiting magazines won't stop anything and when the next mass shooting happens they will start pushing for more.

First off as far as handguns and so called "assault rifles" they are not designed to kill. they are designed to shot a projectile. If you want to say they are designed to kill you must then say hard liquor is designed to make you drunk. As far as not having a "sporting" use you obviously don't recreational shoot much. The supposed evil ar-15 is used buy almost every professional competitive shooting and is loved buy almost every recreational shooter. I enjoy going out back and shoot for fun. When I do a great majority of the time it is a handgun and the next most often is my ar-15. Then you go into the fact that the supreme court sided with the fact that it is the individual's right to keep and bear arms. With that bit I don't NEED to give you reasons that are just going to be ignored anyways as to why I need this gun or that.

Last thing I have two sayings. The first is
"Freedom isn't free"
The second is
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety and will lose both"-Benjamin Franklin

As long as we are a free people our soldiers will have to defend that, we will have terrorists extremists and we will have shootings. Even in prisons under strict security you still have murder or other crimes. Unless you find a better security system than jail that could be used world wide you won't be able to stop crime. And lastly trust me if you give up your liberties for safety you will end up standing there with neither.

 

[chubler]

Read my original post a little closer- Its not that I don't know of uses for large magazines, I just think the benefit from getting rid of them outweighs the benefit of using them. That's a personal opinion though.

I also give absolutely zero credence to any argument painting gun rights advocates as ferocious, or having no idea where to stop. Gun rights advocates havent been given an inch, as you say, in quite some time, so let's not go making assumptions about what they'd take.

And as far as handguns not being designed to kill people... laughable. they're designed to propel projectiles, you say? what kind of projectiles? bullets. What are bullets for? KILLING PEOPLE. some bullets are for target shooting, but that developed as a training method. guns were invented as a more efficient way to kill people, and are still engineered to kill people as efficiently as possible, except for hunting rifles. Those are engineered to kill large game as efficiently as possible, but I don't think anyone in their right mind is questioning the right to own as many hunting rifles as you damn well please.

 

[brandonnash]

Once again, handguns used in competitions, recreational shooting, hunting. There are lots of uses for handguns other than killing people. Just because handguns have been used for killing people does not mean that is their only use.

 

[kmoose]

If you give the gun control advocates an inch they will take a mile. You limit magazines to 10 rounds they will push for 7, 5, 3, then 1.

In just one sentence, Jade, you have summed up the entire problem with the gun control debate. Both sides are convinced that this is just a first step for the other side. Gun control advocates think that gun nuts are going to start buying up Vulcan cannons and leaving them laying around in their driveway, for anyone to come along and walk off with. While gun nuts think that this is just the first step in confiscating their guns. Gun control isn't a public safety problem, a political problem, or a lobbying problem............. it's a human problem. People have grown so cynical that they are incapable of compromising on anything. THAT is the issue that we REALLY need to deal with.

 

[chubler]

Kmoose, you've hit the nail on the proverbial head. Thanks for injecting a little perspective.

And brandonnash, That is absolutely true, and I have engaged in some of those uses in the past. Thanks for reminding me that I need to refocus what i'm saying: guns have plenty of legitimate uses. There's no denying it. However, I believe that because the handguns are designed for the purpose of killing humans (no matter what they're actually used for), they can and should be subject to stricter regulation than things like cars or alcohol, which were brought up earlier in this threat. Cars and alcohol are designed for things other than killing people, they sadly unfortunately end up killing people. Handguns (and "assault rifles") are designed to kill people, so I don't think it's a fair analogy to compare them to cars and alcohol. that's the point i was trying to make.

 

[4irishnation]

Waste of my time!!!!!!!!! I will be protected, my family will be protected, godspeed all.

 

[chicago51]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LORVfnFtcH0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[JadeBrecks]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LORVfnFtcH0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So has our communication abilities. Should we change our free speech laws?

 

[phgreek]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LORVfnFtcH0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

this expresses justification for a pro control opinion on the matter...

low volume shots mean people get away...K. Its also a dumb idea to claim the second amendment is outdated...think about the ramifications...

Anyway...I spent the last three days trying to register my bottling ware and pressure cookers with the ATF...and simultaneously developed a system for uniquely identifying nails, ball bearings, and bbs....so I'm ready...lets do this thing.

I don't like high capacity clips either, and I like the idea of registering firearms....truth be told, I think most are. But unfortunately politicians are greedy, and their supporters are zealots...so nothing was done. I am fast believing getting nothing done was the best thing. This notion of "we need to do something" is knee jerk, and I'm guilty too. We need to do the right thing that addresses the entire problem. We let politicians get away with doing less than solving problems, and no wander both sides resort to underhanded manipulations. I'm really done with this issue until someone comes to the table with a solution that isn't half-assed, and full of gamesmanship.

 

[DSully1995]

Guys can we stay on the topic of Gun control, every single response just deflects to another argument with absurd slippery slope implications.

What is acceptable gun control?
Will gun control work?
Who will be affected/advantaged?

Guiding questions . Lets see if we can agree if anything should be done by government, then identify what.

 

[phgreek]

on a related, but different topic...


...Chris Rock once did a standup routine on gun control. At one point he said bullets should cost $5000 each, then people would have to really be mad at you to kill you...It was Hilarious...

anyway, its a little less funny when the reality sets in that this administration must have seen that routine...at least I hope that's why DHS is buying ammo like a drunk on a bender buys liquor...

"Chaffetz, who chairs one of the House oversight subcommittees holding the hearing Thursday, revealed that the department[DHS] currently has more than 260 million rounds in stock. He said the department bought more than 103 million rounds in 2012 and used 116 million that same year -- among roughly 70,000 agents.

Comparing that with the small-arms purchases procured by the U.S. Army, he said the DHS is churning through between 1,300 and 1,600 rounds per officer, while the U.S. Army goes through roughly 350 rounds per soldier."

A lot of conspiracy theories were fueled today...but my concern is, when given a chance to explain, the answer was basically, that's just the way it is...

So if we are going to ask why civilians need clips that hold 30 rounds...what say we ask why the fvck DHS consumes/stockpiles more ammunition than an army IN COMBAT (with the heightened training and operational consumption that brings).

Valid question that demands an answer....a real answer...

 

[JadeBrecks]

Guys can we stay on the topic of Gun control, every single response just deflects to another argument with absurd slippery slope implications.

What is acceptable gun control?
Will gun control work?
Who will be affected/advantaged?

Guiding questions . Lets see if we can agree if anything should be done by government, then identify what.

If someone doesn't mind answering my question it would help answer the "what is acceptable gun control?" question. Both are constitutional rights. (The first and second) If "times have changed" argument is used and "we have firearms the forefathers never dreamed of" then we also have communication nobody ever dreamed of. If that is your basis on changing laws without heeding the second amendment than are you ok with the same thing being done with your first amendment? This may help those who don't care about guns put the constitution part of it in context.

 

[BobD]

Very sad situation. Prayers to the little girl RIP, the little boy and his family.

http://news.yahoo.com/coroner-boy-5-shoots-2-old-sister-ky-030521203.html?.b=index&.cf3=&.cf4=3&.cf5=Associated+Press&.cf6=%2F

 

[IrishinSyria]

If someone doesn't mind answering my question it would help answer the "what is acceptable gun control?" question. Both are constitutional rights. (The first and second) If "times have changed" argument is used and "we have firearms the forefathers never dreamed of" then we also have communication nobody ever dreamed of. If that is your basis on changing laws without heeding the second amendment than are you ok with the same thing being done with your first amendment? This may help those who don't care about guns put the constitution part of it in context.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment I

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.


The big difference from a textual perspective is that well-regulated is right there in the second amendment.

As for a practical one: "arms," as the text states, are already regulated: pretty severely. You, as a private citizen, can't have a howitzer or, except in rare exceptions, an M60. The debate is not about regulating arms- which is a power of the government that is virtually universally accepted, the debate is about just how regulated they should be. There may be an extreme fringe arguing that guns should be banned completely, but the bulk of the American people favor legislation that improves the way the government tracks firearms, keeps them out of the hands of dangerous individuals, and limits the amount of damage one can do with a weapon. As I said, these are all principles that are accepted by a large portion of the country, at least since the passage of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act in 1986 (signed by conservative hero/world-famous white flag waver, Ronald Reagan*.)


*Edit: How Reagan avoided getting branded as "Runaway Reagan" during the '84 election season and forever after, I will never know.