Are you a Democrat, a Republican, or a Redneck?

Ed.A wrote:Canada is now considering banning "Rambo" knives, not becuase they've actually used in any crimes, no they want to ban them because they look MEAN.
.

That is the EXACT same reason the libs want to ban semi automatic assault rifles. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of firearms knows that 99% of assault rifles are pretty much all looks with very little teeth when compared to oh, say a 300 WIn Mag. But, the Win Mag just looks like a regular hunting rifle so it is allowed. (for now)
This is just another example of blow hard anti gun liberal activists talking out of their A-hole and not having the slightest clue what the facts really are.

Disclaimer: This statement in no way implys that I currently own, have owned, or will ever own an assault rifle or harbor such rifle in my dwelling for the purposes of protection of my family and/or property.

I'm dog sitting this weekend for a buddy and this morning while walking both of our dogs around his field I heard the comforting sound of someone practicing with their semi-auto (sounded like a handgun). Sounded almost as good as a hot engine at the dragstrip. I thought to myself, now theres a good neighbor. Someone you like to have for a neighbor. Someone having some fun but but also prepared for the worst. The dogs didn't even flinch. They know the truth.

John

69Drag wrote:I'm dog sitting this weekend for a buddy and this morning while walking both of our dogs around his field I heard the comforting sound of someone practicing with their semi-auto (sounded like a handgun). Sounded almost as good as a hot engine at the dragstrip. I thought to myself, now theres a good neighbor. Someone you like to have for a neighbor. Someone having some fun but but also prepared for the worst. The dogs didn't even flinch. They know the truth.

John

You may not believe it, but I always loved the sound of a Browning at the beginning of hunting season when I lived in the country, too.

But that's a lot different from hearing the sharp sound of handgun fire where it doesn't belong, like on a busy street, or in a neighborhood.

Believe it or not, we're not the first to wrestle with that question. Our ancestors did, and decided to restrict certain kinds of gun possession under some circumstances. The Supremes are about to decide whether the Constitution allows that. But, like I said above, beware of what you wish for in that case; there are some pretty dangerous prospects which could come out of it.

But that's a lot different from hearing the sharp sound of handgun fire where it doesn't belong, like on a busy street, or in a neighborhood.

That would go without saying, except you did say it. I don't think I'd be going out on a limb by saying that those people are not law abiding citizens, they have no respect or use for laws. Thats why they be criminals.

Ed.A wrote:

But that's a lot different from hearing the sharp sound of handgun fire where it doesn't belong, like on a busy street, or in a neighborhood.

That would go without saying, except you did say it. I don't think I'd be going out on a limb by saying that those people are not law abiding citizens, they have no respect or use for laws. Thats why they be criminals.

OK, I'll bite; then just how, if the 2nd Amendment grants the unfettered right to keep handguns, do you propose to take their guns away? By putting them in prison after they kill my wife or kid walking in front of their house?

stockingfull wrote:But that's a lot different from hearing the sharp sound of handgun fire where it doesn't belong, like on a busy street, or in a neighborhood.

I agree. But you seem to be assuming that when you do hear this sound that it is automatically a "bad thing" (tm). Evidence suggests that it is far more likely to be a shot fired in justifiable self defense than that of a shooting of a legally owned handgun by its owner in a crime.

There are around 30,000 gun deaths a year in the US. Roughly 17,000 suicides (900 or so children), 12,000 homicides (2000 children), 300 defensive (10-20 children), 800 accidental deaths (300 children). Children here means 0-19 years old. This is out of a population of 300 million. (all rounded out 2005 data from the CDC). Also, these are numbers for all guns, licensed or unlicensed, handgun or long gun.

Criminal shootings with a licensed handgun by the licensed owner are vanishingly small in number. I'm all for getting the guns out of the hands of criminals and minimizing suicides and accidental gun deaths, but gun control laws have minimal impact on these events. Indeed the money for registration and buy back and other such programs would likely be better spent on depression treatment/counseling and drug law enforcement if saving lives is the goal.

Accidental deaths with licensed guns are tragic, but they are vanishingly small in number (on the order of 750-1000 or so a year) and fewer still are children being killed accidentally. This is not a gun control problem, it is a gun owner stupidity problem and should not be used as an excuse to regulate and mandate and denigrate all the millions of legal gun and handgun owners around the country that manage to get by year after year and use their firearms responsibly and to good end.

In my opinion, the negatives of legal handgun ownership is far outweighed by the good that a pistol can do in the hands of a licensed, responsible owner. There should be some barriers to getting a permit. Criminal history, history of mental or psychological impairment (perhaps including ongoing use of anti-depression medication?), I can even get down with a required safety course and an additional course for concealed carry covering defensive use. But the subjectivity that is applied in many states and counties (including here in NY) is asinine. Besides being against the 2nd amendment, in my opinion, it is also a violation of the equal protection clause I would think, especially when there are significant differences in permit practices from county to county in a state. Total bans, even on premises permits for the home or target shooting permits, fogeddaboudit.

More liberalized handgun permitting laws (so called "shall issue" laws) have been enacted in at least a couple dozen states over the past 20ish years. Where is this much talked about OK Corral shootout instigated by a legal handgun owner? Certainly some few such owners have used their weapons in criminal acts, but the number is vanishingly few compared to the number that use them effectively and righteously in self defense and defense of others. The fact is legally owned handguns in the hands of permit holders are used to save a great many more lives each year than they take, to the point that it is surprising that this is really even a matter of contentious discussion.

Such laws do not result in everyone going out and arming themselves. I believe where such laws were enacted typical permit rates are around 5-10%. These states have cities and suburbs and road rage and rush hour and cheating spouses and annoying neighbors and irresponsible people and all the rest just like the rest of the states. Why hasn't this wild west syndrome broken out already in these states? And why do gun control advocates so often refer to a fear of this occurring despite the utter lack of evidence that it occurs? Why do they insist upon people being docile in the face of criminals and intruders and relying on the under staffed, under paid police to somehow magically be there in time to save you? I don't get it. I've been around anti-gun people ever since going to college and I just don't get the thinking and mentality, particularly in the abject lack of evidence of net negative results when people are allowed to own handguns and defend themselves and others.

I keep trying to think of a better choice of words or approach to communicate this to you that hasn't already been used by everyone here but its getting tough. If someone out there is of the mindset that they are going to do harm to you or your family, they will do it. Even if they don't have a gun, they will carry out their goal one way or another.

Lets say that somehow, nobody has any guns. The anti-gunners won and they managed to take away every single gun from the citizens of this country, even the bad guys. Do you think murders and assaults will go away? Or is it reasonable to assume that the weapon of choice will change to something else and those crimes continue? Then what will the former anti-gunners want to ban?

You can have a warehouse full of laws but the bad guys will still be out there and they will still be doing bad things. I want to have a fighting chance against them. I don't want to rely on the police. I don't want to hope that I'm bigger and stronger than my assailant. I want my gun to blow that s.o.b. to hell if he tries to hurt me or my family.

John

I'll be switching over to Redneck soon. They worry less and have more fun.

The second amendment provides for the ability of the people as individuals to own arms. Article one of the main body of the constitution clearly establishes the states right to establish and regulate state militias and the feds right to establish and regulate an army and navy. Therefore, the people as individuals and groups were free to keep and bear arms for whatever defensive purposes necessary, even against the government.

Guns are tools and have other purposes besides war, the tenth amendment secures those uses as the rights of states and the people. Personally I feel that the "guns" of the 2nd Amend. were on par with the military small arms of the day. Similarly, the second amendment should be interpreted to include all current military small arms of today including rocket and grenade launchers, machine guns and other infantry small armament. How else could the people hope to suppress a coup d'etat by government military?

As with the first amendment, there are limitations on the rights which were implied in the amendment by virtue of the founding fathers collective belief in common law and their moral and ethical standards which were higher than today's prevailing popular standards. The Law of Nature was assumed as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence. Today it is debated. The Law of Nature is absolute. You have the right to defend yourself and not be oppressed. That was a given. And, God's Law was also an internalized limitation on men more than today, even in the case of non-spiritual people. Thus, those who demonstrate the propensity to violate the Law of Nature and God's law lose the constitutional rights. Similarly those who slander or libel are fined. Those who yell 'fire' in a theater are incarcerated. Those who riot are also jailed.

In any case, the Second Amendment is as valid and solid as the rest in the Bill of Rights. Any attempt to circumvent it, or any other element of the Constitution, without benefit of due process by the citizenry, should be regarded as treason.

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) So how about this as a start for common sense:
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!that is) must prevail.

stockinfull said:
That would go without saying, except you did say it. I don't think I'd be going out on a limb by saying that those people are not law abiding citizens, they have no respect or use for laws. Thats why they be criminals.[/quote]

OK, I'll bite; then just how, if the 2nd Amendment grants the unfettered right to keep handguns, do you propose to take their guns away? By putting them in prison after they kill my wife or kid walking in front of their house?[/quote]

It's actually really frightening that you don't have a better grip on reality. You live in a utopian dream world of hopes and wishes. Even if guns were outlawed, do you really think that the bad guys are going to turn in their guns? And if you could somehow magically collect all the guns currrently in possecesion, do you not think that they would be available just like drugs are? All draconion gun laws like do is disarm the law abiding citizens and make them defenceless against the bad guys. In England now where hand guns are illegal, crimes such as robbery, home invasions and daytime burgalry are way up because the bad guys know the good guys don't have guns. It's insanity to think such laws would make you safer. It's quite the opposite. Even you are made safer by the thought in the back of some bad guys mind that you might have a gun in your home. Of course if you want to put all chance to rest, yoou could put a sign in front of your home that says "gun free zone." That would probably work.

stockingfull wrote:OK, I'll bite; then just how, if the 2nd Amendment grants the unfettered right to keep handguns, do you propose to take their guns away? By putting them in prison after they kill my wife or kid walking in front of their house?

Actually, if you were a real man you'd protect your family, it's your duty, but if your not there then you should have already taught your wife and kids how to handle and operate their own firearms so they'd not have to worry about scumbag criminals harming them. Sheesh, you can lead a horse to water.......

What "Devil" wrote is in quotes, My comments follow the quotes:



"My attitude is that a bit of common sense is needed for firearms regulation. "

Oh goodness! "Common sense" was the argument used throughout the century to grab guns before the people were slaughtered. The act of gun grabbing may be common but it makes no sense, at least not to the dead innocent victims.


"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."

You apparently haven't read the US Constitution. Read Article one. Article one clearly gives the states the right to form and regulate a militia, no further verbage was required for them. The Bill of Rights was intended for the people and the states, not the federal government. If the Founders meant only "militiamen" should keep and bear arms, they wouldn't have used the word 'people'. Then, read the Founders debate papers aka The Federalist Papers (that is if you can tear yourself away from Das Kapital for a moment) if you want the Founders 'intentions'. You'll find that some of the founders agreed with you, but they were bested in both the argument and the vote.


"It can also be read as requiring a government "Hands off" when it comes to citizens owning a firearm."

It doesn't say that or mean that. Gun owners are sick of this baloney. If you want to change the Second Amendment do it properly (also in the constitution) or you will have a civil war on your hands. If you don't use the right method of change it is treason.


"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."

In a word, NO. Words have meaning. Context confirms the meaning, otherwise the US Constitution is toilet paper. The context of the Constitution refutes that sophomoric argument.


"This country was alot different in 1776 than it is in 2008. "

Yes, the people need to have the Supreme Court clarify that long gun ownership in 1776 put the people's militia on par with the military infantry. The people have the right to keep and bear machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, communications, etc. to be on par with the modern military infantry.


"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."

Golly, it IS scary that the people are less protected with more government protection. Have you seen the crime statistics? Do you know how many US citizens are in jail right now? It's a record of proportion.


"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."

Good luck with that without a firearm.


"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."

Common sense is not common. Education is the key. Forget about common sense, there is no such thing. Train yourself, mature children and your wife to use a firearm. Use requires intimate knowledge of the firearm and its destructive capability. Safety is the bulk of the lesson. Join a gun club. Use the gun for safe fun. USE IT being the key words. It will command your respect. Then, let your congressman ban violence on TV. Let visual artistic mass media be regulated as to violence; not the news, not radio, not the printed word, just visual artistic mass media . If guns and violence aren't glorified on TV to the children and teens, then the allure is reduced. Preserve your children's innocence and then they can see the stark painful contrast between reality and fantasy. We have used a liberal interpretation of the First Amendment to destroy the fabric of society.


By adhering to these timeless principles, the rest of your analysis is unnecessary.

I mentioned this in my first post but I'll say it again. The U.S. Dept of Justice completed an in depth study on the Second Amendment. If you consider them to be an unbiased source, its worth checking out. Its long and parts of it are very wordy but they do explain it in easy to understand text as well. They didn't get into what types of guns are covered, just what it means and who it applies to. They spell out that only people (individuals) have rights, not government entities. They operate under authority. The people have rights to protect them from government. As soon as I find the link I'll post it. That is, as soon as I figure out how to post a link! Ha!

John

[quote="mikeandgerry

You apparently haven't read the US Constitution.









(Below is my (Devil5052) rebuttal to MikeandGerry:




My original arguments (talking about the 2nd amendment) were:

"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."






Here is the actual 2nd amendment:

Article II

"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 think my arguments were absolutely accurate & I really dont understand your obvious anger, as the thrust of my post was to point out the inherant problems dividing the sides in the gun ownership debate when neither side is totaly right or wrong.