Gun Thread

From a different thread but obviously applies here too:






My attitude is that a bit of common sense is needed for firearms regulation. A few points:

1. The 2nd amendment can be read to back up whatever side you're on. It starts out talking about a "well regulated militia" so a good argument can be made that the founding fathers intention was to tie gun ownership to a militia. It can also be read as requiring a government "Hands off" when it comes to citizens owning a firearm. Whichever side of the argument you are on, the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to back up your side....thus it is useless to be used to decide the issue.
2. This country was alot different in 1776 than it is in 2008. Back then, there was obviously a much better argument for the need of a farmer/rancher to own a gun for many reasons, including self protection. Those who argue that the individual need for gun ownership is the same today, with instant communication, fast police response, over-crowded neighborhoods, etc, are just kidding themselves.
3. By the same token, I feel that I have the same right today as a citizen of this country back in the 1700's to defend myself & family against a criminal meaning to do harm.

OK....so how do you balance the right to protect your family vs the obvious danger that just having firearms around presents? I think this is the crux of the debate & this is what requires common sense. I dont think any rational person would argue that their need for self-protection requires them to own nuclear weapons, a flame thrower or a howitzer, but where do you draw the line? The Nat'l Rifle Assoc takes the oppoosite & equaly absurd view (in my opinion) that no gun control is needed, or very little.
I'm struggling to come up with a coherent argument here but it is a tuff issue & one that is very "area you live in" dependant. I think that states rights here makes alot of sense. It is much easier to argue that someone living on a ranch in Wyoming may have legitimate use for a firearm to shoot wolves, ect. His ranch is probably much further away from police for them to respond timely to a problem.
On the other hand, it is obviously much more likely that a person walking the streets of Manhatton will become the victim of a violent street crime! (I'm going back & forth as I write here!)
Thus , it would appear that only the nature of the dangers we face today are different than those we faced 200 years ago, not the deadliness. (Back then the danger of indian attack was much more probable than being killed by a heroin addict in need of drug money)
Setting aside target practise & hunting as legitamate uses of firearms, I think we would agree that self-protection presents the most difficult area of this debate. Since it is highly unlikely that you will be attacked by a band of wild indians (unless you win real big at a casino, I think today's more probable threat would come from 1 or 2 armed street criminals, car jackers or home invadders.That being the case, I dont see the need for an indivdual possesing a weapon that holds 20 to 30 rounds. (if you cant stop a heroin addict attack with 15 rounds, then maybe you shouldn't be carrying a firearm at all!I guess the answer is that there really is no easy answer & common sense (whatever that is) must prevail.

I live in a very rural area so I can't depend on police to protect my family . A neighbor had there alarm go off at there house while they were away camping . They were only a hr away . The alarm company called them on there cell phone and told them the police had been called .They got home and canceled the call over an hr later still no police . Plus I have had coyote right in my back yard . So I will keep my firearms.

Flyer5 wrote:I live in a very rural area so I can't depend on police to protect my family . A neighbor had there alarm go off at there house while they were away camping . They were only a hr away . The alarm company called them on there cell phone and told them the police had been called .They got home and canceled the call over an hr later still no police . Plus I have had coyote right in my back yard . So I will keep my firearms.

A perfect example of the legitimate need/use of a firearm.

Deciding who has a legitimate need/use for something is a slippery slope. Not saying people should be able to have absolutely ANYTHING they want, but its still a slippery slope. The same problems carry over to other sujbects as well. I'm a life member in the AMA (American Motorcyclist Assoc) and they face similar issues. Some people want to decide what kind of bikes are really necessary. They ask who really needs a bike capable of 180+ mph for use on public roads? Well, I won't use that kind of speed on the roads, but why shouldn't I be able to have a bike like that? Almost everyone has been speeding at some point. Heck, if you're not doing 80 on the interstate, you're practically run over. Another 20 mph and you're at 100. But people freak out when that magic number 100 is mentioned.

I drag race the same bike I that I ride to work everyday. The same bike I ride everywhere on. Don't know for sure what the top speed is because I haven't tried. But it'll do a tick under 130 in a 1/4 mile at the track. I don't do that on the road so why should I be limited to what can ride on the road? It's all what you do with it that matters and that goes for guns as well.

John

69Drag wrote:Deciding who has a legitimate need/use for something is a slippery slope. Not saying people should be able to have absolutely ANYTHING they want, but its still a slippery slope. The same problems carry over to other sujbects as well. I'm a life member in the AMA (American Motorcyclist Assoc) and they face similar issues. Some people want to decide what kind of bikes are really necessary. They ask who really needs a bike capable of 180+ mph for use on public roads? Well, I won't use that kind of speed on the roads, but why shouldn't I be able to have a bike like that? Almost everyone has been speeding at some point. Heck, if you're not doing 80 on the interstate, you're practically run over. Another 20 mph and you're at 100. But people freak out when that magic number 100 is mentioned.

I drag race the same bike I that I ride to work everyday. The same bike I ride everywhere on. Don't know for sure what the top speed is because I haven't tried. But it'll do a tick under 130 in a 1/4 mile at the track. I don't do that on the road so why should I be limited to what can ride on the road? It's all what you do with it that matters and that goes for guns as well.

John

I agree about your "slippery slope" analogy but a society has rights too, & when private ownership of anything presents a possible public danger then it's hard to avoid trying to climb that slope. (I think it would be a real stretch to try to ban someone from owning "Twinkys" but a hurtling piece of machinery capable of killing people on public streets may warrant a walk on that slope)

Just because a possible bad result is "possible" doesn't mean you automatically say no one can have one. Many many things are possible threats to the safety of others. A car of any size is bigger than a bike and and capable of killing someone should they be run over by one. With the possible exception of the extreme environmentalists out there, I don't know of anyone who would suggest the cars be banned.

You deal with issues like these by dealing with the offenders, not the ones playing by the rules.

John

69Drag wrote:Just because a possible bad result is "possible" doesn't mean you automatically say no one can have one. Many many things are possible threats to the safety of others. A car of any size is bigger than a bike and and capable of killing someone should they be run over by one. With the possible exception of the extreme environmentalists out there, I don't know of anyone who would suggest the cars be banned.

You deal with issues like these by dealing with the offenders, not the ones playing by the rules.

John

I never said ..."you automatically say no one can have one.'..... but it may warrant considering some restrictions. People have a right to band together to address a common threat, just as an individual has rights. Your "car" analogy is a good one. The benefits of cars to society are such that these benefits far outway the disadvantages & risks. Thus, a Risk vs Benefit criteria is not a bad place to start. Conversley, an individual claiming the right to walk down the street carrying a loaded flame thrower presents a very real public danger to no benefit to society.

You're right , you didn't say automatically. My bad.

I just hate the idea of fixing problems by taking something away from everyone instead of dealing with the individual who is causing the problem.

John

69Drag wrote:You're right , you didn't say automatically. My bad.

I just hate the idea of fixing problems by taking something away from everyone instead of dealing with the individual who is causing the problem.

John

That there is the problem . I'd say you nailed that one right on the head . Just because a bike is capable of 180mph doesn't mean that someone should be doing that speed on public crowded streets . Thats what they make track days for . As well as guns if you can't be responsible you shouldn't own one . But if you are a law abiding citizen and responsible you should be able to own anything you want within reason of coarse. I would love a fully functional tank . The reason I own guns for protection is because there are to many criminals with them . Otherwise mine would be strictly for hunting or target .
Dave

Flyer5 wrote:

69Drag wrote:You're right , you didn't say automatically. My bad.

I just hate the idea of fixing problems by taking something away from everyone instead of dealing with the individual who is causing the problem.

John

But if you are a law abiding citizen and responsible you should be able to own anything you want within reason of coarse. I would love a fully functional tank .
Dave

"Within reason"......is the key. Again, where do you draw the line. I personaly would love to own a personal, tactical nuclear weapon. (about the yield of the Hiroshima bomb) Why shouldn't I be able to own one? (I am a law biding citizen with Constitutional rights after all)

But.....Suppose I suffer a nervous breakdown & decide that Boston, Mass is the home of all evil in the world?
Suppose a terrorist breaks into my house & steals my nuclear weapon?



Society.....those of us living together have a right to collectively protect ourselves too, right?


See my point?

Devil5052 wrote:

Flyer5 wrote:

69Drag wrote:You're right , you didn't say automatically. My bad.

I just hate the idea of fixing problems by taking something away from everyone instead of dealing with the individual who is causing the problem.

John

But if you are a law abiding citizen and responsible you should be able to own anything you want within reason of coarse. I would love a fully functional tank .
Dave

"Within reason"......is the key. Again, where do you draw the line. I personaly would love to own a personal, tactical nuclear weapon. (about the yield of the Hiroshima bomb) Why shouldn't I be able to own one? (I am a law biding citizen with Constitutional rights after all)

But.....Suppose I suffer a nervous breakdown & decide that Boston, Mass is the home of all evil in the world?
Suppose a terrorist breaks into my house & steals my nuclear weapon?



Society.....those of us living together have a right to collectively protect ourselves too, right?


See my point?

What could a nuclear bomb be used for besides destruction . The tank for me would be recreation ya know plinking off woodchucks . As far as nuclear ability like personal energy ,electric heat for the home . That would be feasible but it gets back to reason . I do see your point but as usual the uncivilized human race cant be trusted . So how do you define uncivilized . It does get confusing .

[quote="Flyer5
What could a nuclear bomb be used for besides destruction . The tank for me would be recreation ya know plinking off woodchucks . As far as nuclear ability like personal energy ,electric heat for the home . That would be feasible but it gets back to reason . I do see your point but as usual the uncivilized human race cant be trusted . So how do you define uncivilized . It does get confusing .



I agree that it does get confusing & there is no easy answer to gun control. I think all we can do is fall back on a majority view on what is "reasonable". Most of us have a gut feeling as to what is reasonable but it's often hard to verbalize let alone legislate. It's like what a Supreme Court Justice (I forget who) once said when asked to define pornography.....He said: " I can't accurately define it, but I know it when I see it!"

Devil5052 wrote:Conversley, an individual claiming the right to walk down the street carrying a loaded flame thrower presents a very real public danger to no benefit to society.

How else am I going to help my neighbor get the coal fire started?

Flyer5 wrote:The tank for me would be recreation ya know plinking off woodchucks .

Must be some crazy mutant woodchucks on the account of your personal tactical nuclear device back in the shed.

Devil5052 wrote:I think all we can do is fall back on a majority view on what is "reasonable". Most of us have a gut feeling as to what is reasonable but it's often hard to verbalize let alone legislate.

If that's what is comes down to, then we're all in trouble. That's why I'm in support of adjusting this right only through the constitutional amendment process. Requires quite a bit more than mere majority view, as it should. We're dealing with a natural right to self defense and home defense, and the one civil right that ultimately enables all the others. Just because majority views have soured as of late on personal gun ownership and on what guns are reasonable to own doesn't mean that the majority gets to dick around with our rights without going about it in the fair and established way, by constitutional amendment.

All the rest about individual vs militia/state and reasonableness and urban vs rural and whatnot are really just ways to obfuscate and skirt the fundamental truth: The right for individuals to keep and bear arms is protected by the 2nd amendment in both intent and plain reading of the time, and it will take another amendment to place restrictions on that. No one has done it so far because there have been judges willing to entertain the obfuscations in the interests of "practicality" and "reasonableness". The principle advocates for reforms have also known that their full agendas at any given time would not pass as an amendment and to only go half way in an amendment would potentially be fatal to the rest of their agenda once a new modern amendment is in place. So they nibble around the edges, ever so slowly, little by little finding their way to their goal while "the majority" nods in approval at each incremental step because little by little the people's minds are changed by less rural living, by teachers and interest groups and media indoctrinating the new way from the earliest ages, and constantly growing apathy for serious analysis and thought about anything political not immediately affecting "you".

I'm not suggesting there has been a 100+ year conspiracy to take away 2nd amendment rights, only that each generation has produced new anti-gun advocates wanting to build on the successes of their predecessors, touting an ever expanding agenda of disarmament. Nor am I saying all gun regulations are inherently anti-2nd amendment. Gun locks with all new sales, fine. Instant criminal background checks, fine. Required at all times in the home (unless being actively, immediately used for self-defense): unloaded, with gun lock, stored in a locked cabinet/closet with no visibility into the cabinet/closet, ammunition separate; way overstepping the bounds of the constitution (self-determination, self-defense, property rights, liberty, etc.).

Hey Devil5052, I got distracted by the tangents this subject took off on and I forgot to comment on your training experience story. That sounds very intense and fun at the same time. I wouldn't mind taking some more training sometime. Did you guys wear any hearing protection while doing that? Man, the sound of gun fire in a building would be deafening. I shot a groundhog inside a barn with a .357mag and no hearing protection. My ears rang for a couple hours.

The same group that gave me my ccw training also offers some more advanced levels of training. I'm friends with one of the instructors and he works at the gun shop I frequent. Also good friends the the gun shop owner and I get a little extra $$$ knocked off my purchaces. With the rising prices of ammo these days, any little bit helps.

John

69Drag wrote:Hey Devil5052, I got distracted by the tangents this subject took off on and I forgot to comment on your training experience story. That sounds very intense and fun at the same time. I wouldn't mind taking some more training sometime. Did you guys wear any hearing protection while doing that? Man, the sound of gun fire in a building would be deafening. I shot a groundhog inside a barn with a .357mag and no hearing protection. My ears rang for a couple hours.

The same group that gave me my ccw training also offers some more advanced levels of training. I'm friends with one of the instructors and he works at the gun shop I frequent. Also good friends the the gun shop owner and I get a little extra $$$ knocked off my purchaces. With the rising prices of ammo these days, any little bit helps.

John

We always wore sound deadening headphones & our usuall blue overalls. (Trying to remember if we wore the headphones during the Hogan's Alley part of training but I can't remember???) I do remember that most of our firearms traing was taught using "Wad Cutters" for ammunition but that late in our trainnig they introduced us to "Super-Vel" ammuniton which went off like a bomb & practicaly took your hand off! I have no idea how many more grains it was but our firearms instructer collected all of our, light framed 38Specials & had to re-tighten them after we had fired the combat course using Super Vel. He initaily gave us 6 rounds to load....Three normal wad cutters & 3 Super Vel. We fired the 3 wad cutters first & then, when the first Super Vel went off it was quite a shock!! (our hands actually were bruised & hurt for a fdew days!
You are right...Hogan's Alley was both intense & fun! (actualy more fun to look back on as you were always scared to death about failing the course, as you were doing it! (We did lose about 1/2 of the agent trainees that started it.))
Another fun day was when they took us out to the Marine base at Quantico (now the academy's location) to fire the shotgun & submachine gun. They drove us in buses past numerous, beutifuly manicured outdoor FBI firing ranges but kept on going until we were in what looked like the garbage dump!! That was DEA's firing range!!! (DEA was & probably still is the little pimple on the butt of the FBI & Justice Dept!)
We got to fire the S&W 9mm submachine gun, but they would only give us about 1/2 of a full magazine to play with!!! ( No kick to it at all....I think it was "blow-back" operated.....The lead instructor fired it first & to show us the lack of kick, he held the butt up against his face when firing it....something you realy dont want to try with a shotgun) We shot at ashcans, old car wrecks, tec. It was fun!

Side note: Back in the mid 1970's DEA's weapons doctrine was that a shotgun could only leave the office if accompanied by a senior field agent. (we took one any every raid) The S&W 9mm submachine gun could only leave the office if accompanied by an Asst. Regional Director or above. ( I never saw one used in the field... not once!....It was a different time in terms of violence)