More on Gun Control

[Grammatron]

Grammatron:You are being silly, Grammatron. F**cking books have been written on this subject.

Anyway, it is way past my bedtime. See you in about 18 hours.

Thank you for that eloquent retort.

 

[Tony]

I'm defending the consitution and the second amendment as they were written by the founding fathers.

No you're not. And you have absolutly no evidence of that.


Why don't you and your buddies take your capguns to Washington and stage a nice revolution? Then you could write a nice new consitution however you see fit.

Who says we're not?

 

[Shinytop]

EvilYeti

In 1998 California passed an assault weapons ban that allowed current gun owners to register their weapons in order to keep them. The next year they confiscated many of the weapons they had said would be allowed if registered. You can paint it any way you want, but the fact remain that California treated gun owners as criminals and lied to them to get votes for one act and then ignored their own promises.

Is in any clearer to you now.


You from other countries wanting to ask why we should empower more people to have the ability to kill are asking the wrong questions. We accept that freedoms have a price. Freedom of speech means we allow asswipes to burn our flag in protest. Freedom of religion means we have idiots on street corners yelling out logical insults in the name of religion. And freedom for law abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons will result in criminals having guns all too often.

One of the biggest misunderstandings going on is that the current gun laws are not strictly enforced. I will accept no more gun restrictions until they enforce current laws.

 

[EvilYeti]

Is in any clearer to you now.

No. How many of the registered gun owners had weapons confiscated? You said "many". I would like a number, please. So I can be "clear". Maybe a percentage even?

We accept that freedoms have a price. Freedom of speech means we allow asswipes to burn our flag in protest. Freedom of religion means we have idiots on street corners yelling out logical insults in the name of religion. And freedom for law abiding citizens to defend themselves with weapons will result in criminals having guns all too often.

I actually have no problem with that argument. I make it all the time in fact. What irks me is when the NRA folks lie and say things like guns make us safer or more guns == less crime. That's complete and utter bullsh!t.
I support the second amendment and I support gun control that makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons and ammuntion.

One of the biggest misunderstandings going on is that the current gun laws are not strictly enforced. I will accept no more gun restrictions until they enforce current laws.

Oh thats a load of crap. You complain about the state of California confiscating illegal guns in one breath, then bitch that they don't enfoce the current law! The confiscations were enforcing current laws!

 

[Grammatron]

I actually have no problem with that argument. I make it all the time in fact. What irks me is when the NRA folks lie and say things like guns make us safer or more guns == less crime. That's complete and utter bullsh!t.
I support the second amendment and I support gun control that makes it more difficult for criminals to obtain weapons and ammuntion.

Let me ask you something EvilYeti, do you support the right to carry concealed weapons for law abiding citizens?

 

[EvilYeti]

No you're not. And you have absolutly no evidence of that.

I just said I support the right of Americans to buy as many swords and muskets as they want, without any background checks. Just like the founding fathers intended!

Who says we're not?

Yeah right, you folks did a real bang-up job at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Keep up the good work, its really cleaning up the ole' gene pool!

 

[EvilYeti]

Let me ask you something EvilYeti, do you support the right to carry concealed weapons for law abiding citizens?

If its well regulated, the citizen can show just cause and is not a felon, sure.

Which is how the law pretty much works now.

I'm not in favor of random citizens carrying concealed weapons, as random citizens are morons. They can't even use a cell phone without crashing their car, why should we trust them with automatic weapons?

 

[Kodiak]

As usual, the pro-gunners fall back to refering to the Second Ammendment like Creationist fall back to refering to the Bible.

Come on guys! Let's get past this last (or is it first-and-last?) line of defense, and proceed to discussing the evidenciary reasons for-or-against increasing the killing ability of the general populace.

The "IT SAYS SO IN THE BIBLE....sorrry....THE CONSTITUTION!" argument is uninteresting for skeptics as it is not based on evidence for the rightiousness of free access to guns.

Yes, the law often is the last line of defense, and that is exactly what the US Constitution is, the supreme law of the land (my land, anyway...).

If you had read carefully, I posted the 2nd Amendment info for EvilYeti, who incorrectly thought that the US Constitution
empowers the States and that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, not as evidence of the "righteousness" of anything.

 

[Kodiak]

Poor Americans. They could life in a society like Japan, with gun possession prohibited and few, almost none people being killed with arms (except those bow-and-arrows-incidents), but no... unfortunately they have this Second Ammendment.

Sorry, but I like having more freedom than the Japanese...

 

[Kodiak]

Anything that has to do with gun ownership or restrictions on that ownership inevitably goes back to the 2nd amendment since with out it there would be no rights of gun ownership.

Don't fall into that trap!

Never forget that self defense is a fundamental right. The constitution does not bestow that right, it only protects that preexisting right from any infringement.

 

[Kodiak]

You are being silly, Grammatron. F**cking books have been written on this subject.

Like the bible??

 

[Kodiak]

If its well regulated, the citizen can show just cause and is not a felon, sure.

Which is how the law pretty much works now.

I'm not in favor of random citizens carrying concealed weapons, as random citizens are morons. They can't even use a cell phone without crashing their car, why should we trust them with automatic weapons?

"Well regulated"? Define...

"Just Cause"? Explain...

How disgustingly elitist...

So you are saying that "random citizens" cannot be trusted with freedom?

You're a "random citizen", EvilYeti. How about we take some of your freedom?

 

[a_unique_person]

Don't fall into that trap!

Never forget that self defense is a fundamental right. The constitution does not bestow that right, it only protects that preexisting right from any infringement.

What a crock of ◊◊◊◊. There are no fundamental rights. They are all a political construct.

 

[Kodiak]

What a crock of ◊◊◊◊. There are no fundamental rights. They are all a political construct.

Fundamental in the sense of basic human civilization and society groups. I'm not talking about anything handed down from "on high"...

 

[Shinytop]

If its well regulated, the citizen can show just cause and is not a felon, sure.

Which is how the law pretty much works now.

I'm not in favor of random citizens carrying concealed weapons, as random citizens are morons. They can't even use a cell phone without crashing their car, why should we trust them with automatic weapons?

Sorry, EvilYeti, your post alluding to automatic weapons is indicative of your approach. Nobody said anything about automatic weapons. Changing the words in order to make a point is fundamentally dishonest.

And so is ignoring what another poster says. I referred to the changing of the rules by your state after they made promises to gun owners. You want to keep pointing at the law. The law makers made promises and then broke them with the law. Ignore it if you must but your duplicity and dishonesty is recognized.

Many drivers cannot drive worth a ◊◊◊◊, yet they are still on the road threatening me every day. Should all driving be banned because there are those who cannot handle it? Hell, there are people out there who get pinched after losing their license. They are seldom incarcerated so they do it again tomorrow.

Want an example of a laws not being enforced, huh? Try the thousands of back ground checks who turn up criminals trying to get guns. We know these people are going to come back to pick up the weapon they tried to buy. Why aren't we putting out warrants and arresting them? Seems like that would be a good start.

 

[jan]

Getting butt-fuct by the state is in our best interests?

Just because europeans roll over when their rights are abused, doesnt mean americans will.

Sorry, but I like having more freedom than the Japanese...

You are not allowed to buy nuclear weapons or anthrax, you are forced to pay tax, you are denied to use heroine, you can't cruise the highway with whatever speed you may seem fit, you are forced to buy those porn magazines mail order since your local store doesn't have them, and you are still convinced that America is the home of the Free, unlike Denmark, Japan or Germany, being totalitarian tyrannies?

Seems as if your sweet little bottom is being penetrated by the government without you noticing.

 

[BillyTK]

Fundamental in the sense of basic human civilization and society groups. I'm not talking about anything handed down from "on high"...

Perhaps from a pragmatic basis—in terms of the best way of achieving desirable goals—which suggests that rights aren't fundamental or inviolable, rather it's a matter of efficacy?

 

[BillyTK]

Anything that has to do with gun ownership or restrictions on that ownership inevitably goes back to the 2nd amendment since with out it there would be no rights of gun ownership.

Not strictly true; rights of gun ownership is an expression of the right to self defence, and as such doesn't necessarily depend on your Constitution for its existence. But "the right to bear arms" isn't the ultimate expression of it, it's more of a case of an appropriate expression of it. Which is why you can own guns but not nuclear weapons.

 

[AlH]

What I see is most people are perfectly willing to ban something that they do not do anyway that gives them a perceived benefit.

Non-gun owners see no problem in banning firearms as they do not see any other function to them other than commiting murders. Tea-totalers will ban alcohol as it is not an inconvienence to them and increases their percieved safety. Non-drug users percieve that all druggies are crazed addicts who steal, cheat and live on welfare so locking anyone who uses drugs is acceptable. Non-smokers find that banning smoking everywhere to be advantageous to them without any hardship whatsoever.

You might as well argue that skydiving should be banned as it is dangerous. It can even be used to as murder. Most people don't do it so it is not a loss to them and it "helps" protect those that would do it.

http://www.dropzone.com/news/Murderinquiryintoskydivi.shtml

Automobiles cause more deaths each year than guns but the benefits vs. risks is seen to be acceptable and some Americans buy SUVs just to get a decreased feeling of risk at the expense of the environment and consideration of other drivers on the roads in smaller vehicles. Banning all vehicles for non-government functions and forcing people to use public transport would reduce deaths and reduce damage to the environment but is an inconvienence for most people so it will never happen.

Alcohol is used by a large number of people in the US so the probability of banning is slim. Drugs are not used by the majority of people vocal in politics so getting them legalized is most likely non-existent. Tobacco and guns seem to have about 50-50 split in their supporters and detractors so we have a see-saw battle in laws created over both.

Gun ownership is considered to be a recreation by many, be it target shooting, hunting or just plain collecting unique pieces. Drinking is also considered a recreation. Having a gun for self-defence - to provide oneself a feeling of security is not much different than drinking to improve one's confidence and approach that female in the bar or stand up before the board of directors and give a speech. Target shooting with a gun on the weekends is bad but drinking with the guys to the point of passing out (and possible death from alcohol poisoning) is admired by many. Go figure.

Murder is already illegal in the US be it by gun, knife, club, car, alcohol poisoning, drowning, pushed off a cliff, strangled, hanged, pipe bombs, electrocution, etc, etc, etc. It still happens.

Basically gun control boils down to for the good of society (i.e. you) we are going to prevent a group of people from enjoying an activity they enjoy or find useful because some people misuse it and harm others. It is for your own good.

What needs to be done is alter the urge of the people to kill in the first place. Make it socially unacceptable as they have targeted drunk driving. Instead of hyping/glamorizing/promoting gun violence in the news and media they should change to tone to these people are idiots. Rather than showing a teen that he can become famous for shooting up a school, send the message that no-one will remember you at all for it. Hollywood seems to have a very vocal anti-gun population yet they produce ever-more violent shot-filled action movies each year. It makes you wonder if they are intentionally trying to scare society about guns as I have encountered several anti-gun people locally whose only "education" about guns is what they see in the movies like they are unaware that automatic weapons (as seen in the movies) are already illegal or that a felon (criminal) is already prohibited from possessing a gun. Or else it may not be as underhanded as that - the writers may just be trying to top last year - but the Hollywood actors are just as ignorant as those that I have encountered and actually believe that what is in the movies is real.

 

[AlH]

You are not allowed to buy nuclear weapons or anthrax, you are forced to pay tax, you are denied to use heroine, you can't cruise the highway with whatever speed you may seem fit, you are forced to buy those porn magazines mail order since your local store doesn't have them, and you are still convinced that America is the home of the Free, unlike Denmark, Japan or Germany, being totalitarian tyrannies?

I wasn't aware that you could purchase nuclear weapons in Germany, Japan Denmark.