Acceptable Gun Laws

[lizziedog1]

There must hundreds if not thousands of gun laws and regulations throughout our great land. We have Federal firearm laws, state firearm laws, and local firearm laws. It would probably be safe to say that most of us here agree that there are way too many of them. However, are there any gun laws that you feel are absolutely necessary? Or do you feel that gun laws should be reduced to zero?

I feel that most gun laws are unnecessary if not worthless. There are some laws that I do agree with.

I like the minimum sentencing requirements for using guns in a crime. Doing a background check to make sure someone is mentally balanced enough to own a gun is alright by me. I might be able to come up with another laws or two that I support if really concentrated.

What, if any, gun laws do you support?

[armedtotheteeth]

i wouldnt mind at all if someone was convicted of shooting someone with a gun, you get the same damn treatment, with the same caliber. Not after 15 years in prison, I mean, in the next 10 damn minutes. Now, we would have to make certain exceptions for homeowners who catch bad guys in the house at 4 in the morn, self defense and whatnot. If you knock over a 7-11 and shoot someone with a Glock, Guess what? Lets go out back. That should put a little curb in crime.
As far as restrictions on guns. They all irk me alot. I might be able to live with the NFA, Im Not really sure you should be able to buy a real M-16 at academy or Wally world. ( maybe at a real gun store).
All other restrictions must be off the table otherwise,state and federal.

[kraigwy]

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

PEOPLE: the body of enfranchised citizens of a state:

Infringed:
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.


2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.

Synonyms:
1. break, disobey. 2. poach. See trespass.

To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.
Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.
v. intr.
To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

[THEZACHARIAS]

If you commit a crime with a gun, you should have a bullet hole tattooed on your forehead for each instance so we know who you are. You can keep the baggy clothes; they help us adjust for windage.

I do like that they do background checks, but I dont think it should extend beyond a basic criminal history and confirming your legal residency/citizenship.

A military ID should count as a state issued ID in every state in the union. I shouldnt need a copy of orders to buy a handgun anywhere.

[SPUSCG]

I say no tax stamp for SBRs as the short barrel actaully makes them less effective and less dangerous. I think it is unacceptable that the age to buy a handgun is 21, and all guns should be at 18. Guns shouldn't be taxed any higher than the sales tax. And Concealed carry, allowed anywhere.

I wouldn't mind limiting open carry in public places though, some mall ninja actually open carried a glock, at the mall:eek: around here and scared a ton of people.

[madmo44mag]

IMO- all new gun purchases should be shipped directly to me for evaluation and testing to ensure of a quality product and then returned to the owner at my leisure. ROFLMAO!!!!:D

Outside of that, a back ground check should be all that's warranted.

[Mello2u]

I believe the state has an interest in protecting society. To that end, if someone has been convicted of a violent felony, one which caused or sought to cause bodily harm or death; I think that convicted felon should not only lose his/her freedom but also the right to bear arms. Might be better if they did not lose their right to bear arms, but were executed within 180 days of sentencing.

Minors and incompetent adult persons should not have the right to keep and bear arms.

[Dave_Shotgun]

I recently learned that here in Canada, if a criminal breaks into my home and I blow his head off, that I would be charged with either manslaughter or murder. How screwed up is that? We should have the right to kill intruders like they do in Florida. Sometimes I wish I were American. ;)

[roy reali]

I am sorry about this, but I have a funny Canadian joke.

Do you realize how badly Canada scewed thinks up?

They could have had: American Technology, British Culture, and French Cuisine.

Instead they ended up with: French Technology. American Culture, and British Cuisine.

:D

[mikejonestkd]

Nice Joke Roy!!!

I support back ground checks on purchases, and believe that felons, and people that have shown themselves to be a danger to themselves and/ or others, should not be allowed to purchase firearms. No sales, ownership or posession ( unless accopmanied by an adult ) for anyone under 18.

NFA items should be allowed, with the same or even more stringent rules than above.

A criminal act using a firearm should have severe penalties that are actually given out by judges, rather than plea deals that get them back on the streets in a short period of time.

[Keltyke]

A law that keeps guns out of the hands of a felon, someone emotionally or mentally unfit to have one, or someone who demonstrates a propensity to do violence is a good law.

We can have freedom, we don't need license.

[Re4mer]

I do like that they do background checks, but I dont think it should extend beyond a basic criminal history and confirming your legal residency/citizenship.

I agree with your point the only thing I would point out is that there are many people who are psychologically very messed up that have never committed a crime.

[Shane Tuttle]

A law that keeps guns out of the hands of a felon, someone emotionally or mentally unfit to have one, or someone who demonstrates a propensity to do violence is a good law.

I don't believe there is or will be a law that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals. I think allowing any law abiding citizen to easily have the right to carry just about anywhere he wants will fix this.

I'm all for the mentally unfit or who demonstrates propensity to do violence not have firearms as long as it's deemed through the judicial system, not the legislative or executive branch. As for the mentally unfit, this can get sticky: I'm predicting that we're going to have an influx of soldiers (you too, marines:D) coming home with PTSD. I can see scenarios where they seek help and a doctor sees it as a brain injury. I do agree with this. It's psychological trauma. Some may end up being declared to be unfit to possess a firearm. Do I agree with this? Well, I'm not qualified make that call but everybody's case should be handled on an individual basis. What I don't want to happen is the person to be branded permanently. I firmly believe that PTSD is a treatable condition for some. Whether it's medication or group thereapy, I believe a person may have the ability to recover to normalcy enough to be fit to excercise their 2A rights. I want the avenues to clear their records to be quicker and easier without all the red tape if this is the case.

Like others have stated: Mandatory sentences for crimes committed with a gun. I think one of the few exceptions would be similar to what armedtotheteeth stated. It would be a difficult decision on where to draw the line, but I'd leave that to ones that are more knowledgeable in writing laws.

[Jofaba]

I have some issues with the state of Maine, my only experience so far.

I took a concealed carry class advertised as 4 hours and lasted pehaps 2. It was a Utah class, and three quarters of it was centered around guiding the class through filling out the paperwork. The instructor handed out a pamphlet that was clearly his instructions for the class, even including comments such as "Demonstrate" (to the class, one assumes).

Nearly everyone already had carry permits and were probably happy to get through the required class quickly, but I didn't learn anything and will soon be allowed to carry a loaded firearm on a daily basis.

I will be taking a 10 hour class which includes live fire later this month, voluntarily. I went into that first class to protect myself against criminals, and came out wanting to protect myself from criminals and half of those CC students.

Jokes of "death is an unfortunate side effect of stopping the perk" were disconcerting.

If you're going to require a class to give special rights to applicable citizens, then make sure the class means something. Otherwise keep your laws in kind to your open carry laws, which in Maine are unrestricted (and obviously causes more social fear).

[dmxx99]

Vermont style gun laws nationwide
All NFA laws repealed
68 gun control bill repealed
once this all happens we will be a free nation again.

[tony pasley]

I like the idea of 1792 gun laws.

[Venom1956]

An armed society is a polite society.

When criminals know people aren't allowed to carry concealed weapons they know they are in less danger and more prone to commit crime. Sure there will be mall ninjas but the stupidity of a few should not punish the many... I know while saying that if some one did something stupid and foolish trying to be a hero and I lost a loved one because of it I would hurt, but again it was because they were STUPID and FOOLISH. but at the same time I know someone else has been saved because of this.

Of course I could be considered bias, my dad killed 2 rabid dogs that chased me when i was playing as in my sand box i don't remember much except my mom screaming and how exceptionally loud shotguns are. and late last year when several people broke into the upstairs of our house which is unfinished. (we live far out of town 30 min @ 60mph)
my dad gave his .38 to my mom to protect her and my little sister and i had my 9mm and he had his shotgun. and hearing them bang around up there and having my gun to protect me and my family while the cops came made me feel alot better. he watched our glass patio and i watched our front door. he told "if they break in make sure they can't walk out." they didn't and were long gone before the cops got there... i couldn't imagine how those 10 long mins would have been if we had nothing.

[Jofaba]

Venom1956, perfect example of proper gun defense. No shots fired, authorities called, but you were protected and had the perps breached your safety zone you would have been not only within your rights, but having called 911 and waited for the perps to come to you, you eliminate fear of retribution from a poor justice system.

As for your opening quote, I tried laying that upon my father this morning and his interpretation was that of the anti-gun side. It sounds like a threat and it's ufortunate that it is viewed that way. I agree with the sentiment and I hope that I can make my father understand where I'm coming from one day.

[bbqbob51]

Jofaba, I took a 10 hour CC/handgun safety class through Kennebec Guns in Augusta and it was excellent. They were real quick to squelch the "Rambos or Rambettes" in the class. Owning a firearm is a responsibility and not everyone is responsible enough to own them.
That being said, the only laws/restrictions I am for is the background checks and some restrictions on people under 18, they can still own but need instruction and supervision. You just have to be law abiding and reasonably sane.
I also think banning any particular firearm or ammunitions is ludicrous and we should all fight against that. Enforce the laws already on the books and execute violent criminals, no matter what weapon they used in a murder.

[SPUSCG]

Wellour state doesn't execute anyone, because of a wrongful execution in the 1800s. That needs to be overturned. Violent criminals should get what they earned.

[Jofaba]

bbqbob51, I agree in theory. The less restriction the better, but I am not against common sense regulation, although my definition of that severely differs from President Obama's.

I am not against taking a class first, if it is educational.

I am not against a mental status check, as long as it does not rely on past records. Current mental status only.

I am not against background checks at all, they take a few minutes, and if put against obvious dangers I don't see who loses.

I am not against waiting periods of less than one week.

I am against gun registration.

I am against some convicted felons being restricted for life.

I am against the current laws that allow the rich to enjoy "extra rights" that most of us cannot afford, such as SBR, suppressors, and fully automatic stamp taxes.

I am not against regulation of devices that have mass area destructive properties, such as missiles, bombs, etc.

[triggerhappy2006]

Everything I believe has already been said but one note....the felons that should be restricted from guns for life, are those that our fore fathers didn't expect would be around to have their rights restricted.

[B.N.Real]

How about funding the police,judges and jails so we can actually put criminals away for life instead of running a summer camp for them.

Gun laws are a great way for politicians that need to show they are doing something to get some air time.

Sadly,what they are doing is screwing with the Constution for a sound bite.

Tells you what is really important to them.

Them.

[scorpion_tyr]

I'm pretty satisfied with the gun laws in Texas... can't think of any that I don't like.

[pax]

I fully support all laws against murder and assault, including those which are specific to firearms.

pax

[Dingoboyx]

Only tend to work on Law abiding citizens.... strangely criminals dont often obey laws :eek:

All gun laws are restrictive to the GOOD folks who shoot..... it is unfortunate that the criminal element will ALWAYS be able to get guns of all types :eek:

The tighter the gun laws the more expensive they will be on the black market, so the more stuff criminals will have to steal to afford to buy a gun??:eek:

We have very, VERY (overly?) strict gun laws in OZ, but there is gun crime nearly every day. Unfortunately, we the licenced shooters always cop the kicking :confused: and so it goes on.....

No body knows the answer, the politicians just have to do what they can to win votes :confused:

Muzza

[PoorSoulInJersey]

Since we're talking ideals a little here... I always thought gun laws should pretty much be like your driver's license.

You turn the right age, learn a few laws, and go get your paperwork filled out. Every few years, you get a new picture and pay your $20 to renew it. This repeats UNLESS you do something highly stupid (like get in a drunk driving accident or go on a shooting spree) that gets it taken away.

I think people must know the laws regarding firearms (like what "self defense" and "brandishing a weapon" are), which is the only reason I think it should be licensed at all. Like driving, though, it should not be a hard test to pass or be restrictive at all. So many people have them that it acts as a common form of ID and you're surprised when someone doesn't have one.

If you want to run background checks, do it when someone gets the license and when they renew it, not every time they buy a gun. It's really ridiculous. If I buy a gun a month for 12 months, you don't need to background check me each time. Do I have a license? If so, then I didn't break any laws that would get it taken away.

Like driving, getting caught with a gun without a license means you're really screwed.

Unlike driving/cars, I don't think guns require insurance and registration.

Most states (seem to) assume drivers know what they are doing and will follow the rules until they mess up. I think firearms laws should make the same assumptions.

Most laws that cover firearm usage already exist. It's illegal to kill or injure or strike someone unless they are an immediate threat to you. It's illegal to threaten someone, to damage property, and to overthrow the government. They don't need to add "with a gun" to every law out there.

Ammunition laws? Give me a break. We need that about as much as we need gasoline laws. Maybe, outside chance, maybe, I'd go along with a regulation of quality, but I think the economic market takes care of the really low quality stuff on its own.

Carry laws? As long as you aren't killing, threatening, or damaging anything (i.e., breaking any other laws), there shouldn't be any problem with carrying. Personally, I'd be more likely to allow anyone to concealed carry and license open carry (I live near a major city, though, where open carry pretty much guarantees a cop will be having a little talk with you while you are covered with multiple weapons, perhaps after you are bleeding and laying in the ambulance). Along those lines, I'd require LEOs to have one of those open carry permits. I'm not saying you'd have to be an LEO to get one, just that the same rules apply to everyone. For the most part, I think if you are allowed to own it, you should be allowed to carry it. ANYWHERE. I do think there should be limits on carrying while drunk or stoned (for the same reasons you shouldn't drive in that condition, your judgement and reflexes are impaired).

Machine guns? Just like above, if you can afford one and haven't been any threat to anyone, why not? I'd bet you can do a lot more damage with an SUV if you really tried than you could with a machine gun.

A comparison to speed limits.... OK, no bullets faster than the speed of light. That seems to be covered under the laws of physics already, so no need for the government to repeat it.

For larger hardware, like missiles, bombs, cannons... I think they are in the category as tractor trailers and airplanes that do require a little more control and licensing.... not saying that it's not possible, though.

Should you be required to report one stolen? Yeah, I think so. But I don't think it has to be within the first 20 minutes or else it becomes a felony or something stupid like that.

Should you be required to keep them locked up in an unusable condition with kids in the house? No, I just think there should be a little common sense applied on the part of the owner (see above for "assume people know what they're doing").

Pretty much, I want laws that set the rules in general (no killing, stealing, etc), and leave out the part about how you do those things.

[Shane Tuttle]

I'm pretty satisfied with the gun laws in Texas... can't think of any that I don't like.

The only thing I don't like regards to the CCW law is the fees. It's been a while since I last looked, but I think it was in the ballpark of $150. I think that's a bit steep. Other than that, I like Texas' gun laws. for the most part...

[Bud Helms]

I'd say this one belongs in L&CR.

Moving now.

[MedicineBow]

An armed society is a polite society.

There's a longer saying:

Anyone who says an armed society is a polite society has never been to Afghanistan.

[Shane Tuttle]

Anyone who says an armed society is a polite society has never been to Afghanistan.

Completely different set of rules of engagement, too...

[MedicineBow]

Completely different set of rules of engagement, too...

Well, that's true, now. Though our saying came from before there was any of that sort of "engaging" going on.

[gbran]

I could think of lots of common sense gun laws;

No shooting jack rabbits from the 3 o'clock steetcar.
No discharge of firearms in city limits.
No firing up in the air.

I could go on and on, but, ya'all get the drift.

[Shane Tuttle]

I could think of lots of common sense gun laws;
No shooting jack rabbits from the 3 o'clock steetcar.
No discharge of firearms in city limits.
No firing up in the air.
I could go on and on, but, ya'all get the drift.

I can understand your intent of keeping it simple. But attorneys would have a field day if it were so.

No discharge in city limits? What happens to you when you fire your gun to defend yourself inside of city limits?

[maze.rodent]

hmm... i thing that you should have to go through hell to get any given gun, but once you have it, no further questions asked. longarms permit. handguns permit. sbr-sbs permit. MG permit. all available at age 16 (exept the last one). for instance: you get SBS permit, you can build a sawed-off and do whatever the [redacted] you want to do with it- no freakin' $200 tax. no assault weapons ban. concealed weapons permits avalible. no allotments for paranoid states like CA to make stricter laws.



not to spark a political debate, but i don't agree with either political party's gun views. in this case, as i see it, the difference between the DEM and GOP is the difference between [redacted] with mustard, and [redacted] with ketchup. you don't want to take either, so ya might as well pick your favorite flavor.

[Al Norris]

Welcome to the Firing Line, maze.rodent.

In case you missed it, we are a family oreiented board. The language filters are in place for a reason. Skirting them, however inventive the means, is against the rules you agreed to abide by, when you signed up. This one in particular:

2) Language that would be inappropriate in the polite company of strangers is quite unwelcome here.

[Venom1956]

Im not trying to pick a fight but wanted to reply to my comment of "An armed society is a polite society."

(noun) society - an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization

I would argue that Afghanistan has neither a distinctive cultural or economic organization. Right now they have so many different factions all struggling for power over that country it definitely lacks any form of society. No offense to anyone please here or about Afghanistan, I didn't say the couldn't just from my point of view that right now they don't have it. I'll be honest due to a back injury I cannot serve and I have not been to Afghanistan.

[OuTcAsT]

I prefer the simple approach.

Rule#1, (see amendment 2 of the COTUS)

Rule #2, (not applicable due to Rule#1)


Any questions? :cool:

[maze.rodent]

sorry, sorry. will remember in the future, thank you for the reminder. no ofence was intended, but, as i now see, it did come off that way.

once again, i apologize (profusely):o

[ltdave]

What, if any, gun laws do you support?

only one:


Code of Ordinances & Gun Law

Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability, which would prohibit them from using such a firearm.

Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

Kennesaw, Georgia

[SOneThreeCoupe]

I support utilizing existing laws against brandishing, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder to prosecute for gun crimes.

Other than that, I have no problem with Wal-Mart carrying M249s for the general consumption and people open carrying suppressed pistols on the street in front of a K-12.

[44 AMP]

Because guns empower individuals, for both good and evil. And different ruling groups (including elected officials) prefer their subjects to be dependent on them and do not wish them to be empowered as individuals or as groups.

We have had laws holding that murder and assault were crimes long before there were any guns.

Gun control laws are all about control. Control of you, as an individual, in what property you may own, and who's permission you need to own it.

Gun contol laws are about prior restraint of your exercise of your civil rights. And I'm not talking just about our right to keep and bear arms, I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

Nobody is arguing against the kinds of laws that say you can't shoot people for fun and profit. But laws that say you need govt permission to own a gun, and it can't be too small, or too big, and it can't look a certain way, or be able to be shot fast, or hold too many bullets, etc., because you might decide to shoot people for fun and profit are, to me, morally wrong.

Every other political system on earth (save those directly modeled on ours, and even some of them) places a higher value on the state than on the individual. Individuals are only of worth as they serve the state. There are many varying degrees of this concept, and often the "state" is is described using the words "the people" or "the greater good", or "society", etc. But the basic underlying principles are the same.

Only in the USA was there created a system of government where the people (the great unwashed masses) were deemed intelligent enough, responsible enough, "good" enough to be allowed to rule themselves.

Our revolutionary forefathers took that power away from the established order, at gunpoint. And the system they created has endured, and even improved itself, correcting most of the injustices built into the system, over time, because of the enlightened self interest of the American people.

The idea of gun control laws is that we, the people who rule ourselves, through our elected government, are not fit to rule ourselves!

Gun control laws are about the fact that we are not willing to pay the price for ruling ourselves. It is about the belief that we are all uncontrolable children, until we prove our trustworthiness to the govt. And govt standards of what constitutes such proof are arbitrary, and subject to change.

Gun control laws are about the concept that there are bad things, ignoring the reality that there are not. There are only bad people who use things.

Gun control laws are about the idea that you, as a free citizen should only be allowed to own those things the govt deems that you need.

Gun control laws are about the belief that we are more subject than citizen. They are a slap in the face to honest people.
And they are, at absolute best, a minor inconvienience to criminals. At worst, they create a "safe work environment" for those who's intent is to harm others.

I can go on...and after some feedback, likely will.:D

[pax]

44AMP ~

That post rocked.

pax

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Ok, this one is too tempting so here I go:eek: BTW, quite an endorsement from pax, I'm jealous;)

Gun control laws are all about control.

Right. What's always so bad about control? I am glad that we have speed limits and traffic laws. I am also glad that those nasty food processing plants (and I have been in them working ugh!) are inspected and subject to closure if they don't keep the place clean (same with restaurants). I am glad that raving lunatics can't buy a gun in a gun store and I am glad prior felons are not allowed to even possess them.

I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

You know that is the DOI not the COTUS. Very different documents and the pursuit of happiness is not a right the COTUS protects.

There are many varying degrees of this concept, and often the "state" is is described using the words "the people" or "the greater good", or "society", etc. But the basic underlying principles are the same.


There once was this dude named Hobbes who said that without government and laws man led a "short brutish life". So, we cede some of our personal "liberty" to pragmatically bring about order and ultimately our own self-protection.

In real life that means if your neighbor steals from you; rather than shoot it out with him and possibly kill many others in the process, you have a legal and legitimate means of pursuing redress. Police, Courts and law.

That is control but I kind of like it. We do rule ourselves but not based on what we want individually but rather through a government we elect. However, I am not an anarchist and some of your posts kind of sound like some of them.

Gun control laws are about the belief that we are more subject than citizen.

To paraphrase another fellow whose name I can't remember; "we are a nation of laws not men". We are subject to the government WE elect. If we don't like that government then we should vote them out. We get the government we deserve and the laws we allow.

Don't like gun control? Talk with your vote and that other amendment that really keeps us free; the first.

[Webleymkv]

I look at it this way: Everyone should have the right to do whatever they wish so long as what they do does not harm or infringe upon the rights of someone else. That being said, laws prohibiting certain uses of guns such as prohibiting shooting in a particular area are generally OK because they directly protect the well being of someone else. Likewise, laws prohibiting ownership of guns by people convicted of certain crimes and those diagnosed with certain mental disorders are permissable as well as the government is able to show a legitimate public safety need to enact such laws. However, the number and type of guns that I choose to own as well as how, when and where I choose to carry them has, for the most part, no impact on the safety or rights of anyone else and as such I don't believe that the government has the right to regulate any of these aspects.

[44 AMP]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Gun control laws are all about control.

Right. What's always so bad about control?

Nothing, in principle, the devil is in the details. It is a personal matter, where you draw the line, between "reasonable control" and tyranny. We have laws about shooting people for fun and profit. We have laws about persons we consider unfit (a danger to themselves and/or society) to own and use guns. We have game laws, to enhance and preserve the sport.

All these are reasonable to me, in general. One can make a valid argument about who should be a prohibited person, and for how long, as it wasn't until 1968 that it became Federal law spelling it out. These laws, while generally good, have been taken to extremes in the years since, and not always to every one's benefit.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

You know that is the DOI not the COTUS. Very different documents and the pursuit of happiness is not a right the COTUS protects.

Yes, I do know where the phrase is found. One of those pesky unalienable things, like life and liberty. And while not specifically spelled out in COTUS or the BOR, they are covered. Look at the 10th Amendment.

Hobbes said our lives are "nasty, brutish and short". And this is the philosophy I was referring to, in part. The elitist view that we must have control imposed upon us, for our own good, along with the (usually) unspoken thought that we are not capable of doing it for ourselves.

This is the great experiment that is the United States. That we, the people choose our laws and our administrators.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Gun control laws are about the belief that we are more subject than citizen.

To paraphrase another fellow whose name I can't remember; "we are a nation of laws not men". We are subject to the government WE elect. If we don't like that government then we should vote them out. We get the government we deserve and the laws we allow.


"we are a nation of laws..." We hold that no individuals are above the law, that the laws apply equally to all, with no special priveledged class. I agree completely with the principle. I disagree with how well this has been working out in practice, especially lately, but such is the nature of mankind. The best we can do is hold a high ideal, and strive to achieve it, fail though we may in individual cases.

Too true that we get the government we deserve, and the laws we allow. The problem is that we have gotten used to allowing more and more, and as a people, being involved less and less in the decision making process.

If I sound somewhat like an anarchist, it might be because anarchists base their beliefs on personal freedom and liberty. The difference is in the degree, and the fervor one has for expressing it. Make no mistake, I believe in a society living within a framework of laws, with all individuals responsible for compliance within those laws. What I do not believe in is laws that do nothing but turn the pillars of society into the bars of a cage.

We already have way too many of those, and we don't need any more.

I realize that one can come up with extreme arguments, on both sides. All the way from owning nukes to dial 911 and die! and back. No need to repeat those here, is there?

Gun control laws punish the innocent more than the guilty, as far as I can see. Why do that?

[freakintoguns]

gun control laws made it such that incidents that have occured in the past 20 years or so in the US should not have occured, but still did. so gun control laws are 100% useless. criminals are going to commit crimes. THEY DO NOT GIVE A DANG ABOUT LAWS! thats why we call them criminals. gun alws only affect honest citizens, much like alchol and tabacco laws. kids still drink and smoke, people still drive drunk, and people still drink themselves to death. like 44, i could go on and on about useless laws in this great country, but i wont.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Everyone should have the right to do whatever they wish so long as what they do does not harm or infringe upon the rights of someone else.

Spoken like a true Libertarian. However, as 44 AMP mentioned earlier the devil IS in the details. Lots of arguments can be made about what infringes on the rights of others.

Not related to guns but I remember a debate once about those who rode motorcycles and refused to wear helmets. They crashed, sustained head injuries and became wards of the state (you and me paying taxes) since they had no insurance. So, I guess their decision had an effect on me and I sure don't like it either.

Today, unlike a hundred years ago there is a lot more interconnectivity between us at least as far as our obligations to Caesar. Again, those devilish details, made each law they pass subject to that debate.

You may not care if your neighbor has a rocket launcher and stores C-4 in his basement but I care and don't want him near my house and I don't think his perceived right to have them overrides my right to be safe.

[RDak]

No guns for violent felons or those who are insane.

[USAFNoDak]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I'm talking about that wonderful right to own property, expressed with the term "pursuit of happiness".

Tennesse Gentleman responded: You know that is the DOI not the COTUS. Very different documents and the pursuit of happiness is not a right the COTUS protects.

The DOI states that man is born with certain inalienable rights, which are endowed by his creator. Among those rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Men form governments to secure those rights. (That's not the exact wording but close enough for this discussion).

The Bill of Rights, in the COTUS, was written to protect those very rights, which were mentioned in the DOI, from government encroachment, and from encroachment by the majority who may try to vote for laws which would violate those rights. It is the government's job to secure those rights, and not just the rights which are enumerated in the BOR. That is what the 10th Amendment in the BOR is all about. So, the pursuit of happiness, while not specifically spelled out in the BOR, is still a right which the COTUS protects. How can you not be aware of that?

Also, Tennessee Gentleman writes: To paraphrase another fellow whose name I can't remember; "we are a nation of laws not men". We are subject to the government WE elect. If we don't like that government then we should vote them out. We get the government we deserve and the laws we allow.

I agree with you in this regard, TG, to a certain point. We are a nation of laws, not of men. We are subject to the government WE elect. However, no matter what type of government we elect, or whom we elect to it, that government and the elected officials have been given clear instructions that they are not to violate our civil rights. Those instructions come from the DOI and the BOR in the COTUS. The majority vote is never supposed to violate the rights of the minority. The USSC is supposed to be the body of government which rules against certain laws which the government we elect may very well pass, even though such laws would violate our natural rights.

We, as a people, and a nation, have neglected to teach the true meaning of the DOI, the Constitution, and why we have 3 branches of government. This is why we are failing to secure our own rights. The plan was laid out, but we have lost our fervor for sticking to that plan in the name of self indulgence. In other words: "The heck with other peoples rights. I want my handouts from the government. I want the government to provide for me so I don't have to struggle as much. I want my life to be easy and I want someone else to see to it that it is." That is the attitude we've taken and it is causing "infringement" on our natural, god-given rights.

[BlueTrain]

Did you ever notice that all so-called crime control bills make more things illegal? Be that as it may be, however, I'd like to suggest that, contrary to 44AMP's opinion, our revolutionary forefathers, at least some of them (not everyone here was here by 1800), scarcely took power away from the established order. In fact, those founding fathers were already the established order. Mostly they had a problem with kings, though there was a party that thought Washington should be a king. Even so, the Society of the Cinncinati was established, which is pretty exclusive.

It should be mentioned that even though they were the landowning class, mostly, with a heavy dose of lawyers, they took considerable risk in revolting and many paid for their daring with the loss of their fortunes. Of course, the same thing happened four score and seven years later, too. I don't think that (the risk-taking involved) is appreciated enough these days.

One person, not a contributor here, wrote that if laws were trees and were all cut down, no one would be able to stand in the wind that would blow. It is well to remember that laws generally are in proportion to the number of the inhabitants (not necessarily citizens), and that applies to pretty much all laws, usually with good reason. For instance, it might be one thing to heat your house with a wood-burning stove. But if you lived in a town of wooden houses all set close together, it might be well that there were some rules about burning wood.

[RDak]

They tried that in towns with "wooden houses close together" Bluetrain and it has been an abysmal failure IMHO. :)

[BlueTrain]

Would you elaborate on the absymal failure? What exactly were the laws that failed?

[USAFNoDak]

freakintoguns posted:thats why we call them criminals. gun alws only affect honest citizens, much like alchol and tabacco laws. kids still drink and smoke, people still drive drunk, and people still drink themselves to death. like 44, i could go on and on about useless laws in this great country, but i wont.

Something that seems lost on some people is that laws, in and of themselves, don't PREVENT anything. The punishment associated with breaking the law, is the deterent. Some people don't care about the deterent or don't think they will be caught and punished, thus, they break the law.

If we had a law that said it was illegal to murder someone, but the penalty was a $10.00 fine, there would be a majority of people who would still never murder anyone. Why? Because it would go against their moral judgements, which may include religion, love for their fellow man, respect for human life, etc. There would be some who may not have murdered if the sentence was death, that would murder if they only had to pay a $10.00 fine for doing so. There are others who would and do murder even if the penalty is death or life imprisonment. They don't care about the penalty or think they'll never be caught. The point being is that the law does not prevent anything. The penalty may deter some, but it won't deter all, from breaking the law.

In a free society, laws are really nothing more than a statement of what we deem to be "anti social" behavior. This includes what the punishment will be for engaging in that behavior. The more abhorent the behavior, the more severe the punishment.

This is why gun control laws are typically utter failures when it comes to stopping violent crimes. The law doesn't prevent anything. The punishment for breaking the law deters only the normally law abiding or those who typically live "pretty close" to abiding by our laws.

Let's look at a law such as the assault weapons ban. Did that law stop anyone from getting an assault weapon if they really wanted it? No. The black market can always provide. Manufacturers, while complying with the law, were perfectly willing to change features to sell firearms which were functionally identical to the ones which were banned. Many people at this point in time may have been more likely to willingly ignore the law. Why? Because they didn't see the moral injustice of owning a semiautomatic firearm that was cosmetically similar to a select fire firearm.

Laws have to reflect our moral judgements. I would not murder someone, even if the fine was only $5.00 for doing so. However, if I wanted an AR15 and the government said I couldn't have one, I'd probably get one anyway. Why? I see nothing wrong with me owning one. It affects no one elses rights and I wouldn't use it to commit crimes. I would take the risk of the punishment. Plus, I believe the 2nd amendment protects my right to have one, so I would look at the law as being unjust in the first place.

Some criminals will buy full auto weapons (Google "North Hollywood Bankrobbers) even though it was illegal for them to do so. Why would they risk breaking a gun control law? Because they wanted to rob a bank and were willing to murder anyone who tried to stop them? Gun control can "possibly" deter some law abiding folks because they feel they should abide by any law and they don't want to risk the penalties. They are not the people who commit violent crimes. Thus, gun control is pretty useless in preventing violent criminals from using guns in the commission of their crimes.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That is what the 10th Amendment in the BOR is all about. So, the pursuit of happiness, while not specifically spelled out in the BOR, is still a right which the COTUS protects. How can you not be aware of that?

What I am aware of is that the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with the "Pursuit of Happiness" a phrase found nowhere in the COTUS.

An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

[onthejon55]

When I consider punishment for people that blantly commit murder especially in cases when the victim was random, Simple Man by the Charlie Daniels Band comes to mind

"Take them rascals out in the swamp, put em on their knees and tie em to a stump, let the bugs and rattlers and the alligators do the rest!"

[FloridaCWP]

personally I think there is little room for firearm laws in the US. Right now in total there is approximately 20,000 gun laws throughout this great county. That totals all federal and state laws.

Personally I think that states like Florida have it right if they are going to impliment a permit for Concealed carry. For the State of Florida to refuse you your Concealed weapons permit, they have to PROVE you are not capable of receiving it. And that is based on your criminal record and fingerprints. After that the records are destroyed and you don't have to worry about your privacy being trampled. No gun records, no registrations.

I believe there should be a bear minimum to the restrictions.

1- Pass a federal Background check to check for criminal past.
2- NOTHING ELSE.

There should not be a CWP! Personally that right is granted by the 2A. We shouldn't have to pay extra to invoke a right! We should have to undergo a background check before purchasing a gun and then you should be allowed to carry it both openly and concealed at any time. The legal age should be lowered to 18. Public schools should offer archery and firearms classes to show children responsible use, all be it with the express permission from the parents of the child, but the option should be there.

Proper education and awareness trumps all laws and politicians! If people were shown how to use them and were comfortable with the REAL aspects of weapons then there would be far less "accidental" shooting and deaths related to guns.

People claim you need to show a "proficiency with guns" before you can carry or purchase. To that I say Hogwash! People should have to prove I am not proficient if they wish to take it away from me! Would you expect to be thrown in prison for 20 years simply because you couldn't prove you didn't rob a bank? HELL NO! The burden of proof is on the other side. You must prove I am irresponsible before you can take my gun.

It is just that simple! When a crime is committed with a firearm then those people should be met with harsh punishments. Murderers should be put to death as well as serial rapists and child molesters. Reform rarely works and keeping someone in prison for the rest of their life is more cruel than placing them to death. If you don't believe me ask a vet as to what he would do to a dog that was hit by a truck. I doubt that he would keep him alive if the odds weren't in his favor for a long HAPPY and HEALTHY life.

In prison you don't live a long and happy/healthy life. Keeping someone cooped up there is not a humane option. Those that commit capital crimes should be met with a capitol punishment. This would free up space on the prison system, reduce the burden on the american/state tax payers (at a annual average cost of almost 25K per inmate it adds up quick ) and sends a clear message that We have had enough and won't tolerate criminals treading on the civil rights of others.

Just my $0.02

[USAFNoDak]

Tennessee Gentleman posted:What I am aware of is that the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with the "Pursuit of Happiness" a phrase found nowhere in the COTUS.


My sincere apologies. I meant to refer to the 9th amendment in the Bill of Rights in my earlier post.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because a certain "right" is not mentioned in the COTUS, does not mean that "The People" do not retain such a right. The founders explicity mentioned in the DOI that man has a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They wrote the constitution to make sure that a government instituted to secure such rights did not have any desires to trample such rights and made it illegal for them to do so. After all, the COTUS is the supreme law of the land.

[roy reali]

If you want to know what limits Congress has take out a copy of the Constitution. Look up Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18. That should give you all the warm fuzzies that you can handle.

[USAFNoDak]

I don't believe that the constitution mentions anything about the right to be "safe". It certainly doesn't mention the right to be free from "fear".

The 4th Amendment, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. mentions the right to be secure against unreasonable searches, but I'm not convinced that is the same as the right to be "safe". I do believe that we have a right to be safe, and we have a right to keep and bear arms to help keep us "safe". However, the right to be "safe" is never mentioned in the COTUS.

[#18indycolts]

Public schools should offer archery and firearms classes to show children responsible use, all be it with the express permission from the parents of the child, but the option should be there.


Wishful thinking, sorry. Republicans are known to cut funding in schools, they are too cheap to allow that sort of extracurricular class to be funded in public schools. And the Democrats would be too scared to allow that sort of class IN the schools for the mere fact that it would promote guns. So, total loss there. Which is why as PARENTS it is OUR responsibility to teach our kids the fundamentals. Some things are to be taught by US.

[ZeSpectre]

There is nothing illegal that would suddenly become legal if done with a firearm.

Therefore having gun-specific laws doesn't really serve much of a purpose.

[USAFNoDak]

There is a case to be made for people who have been convicted of violent felonies to have their rights revoked. But should we let them out on the street and not give them back all of their rights? If they are still dangerous, why are they back on the street? We know that dangerous felons who have been let out of prison have access to weapons, including firearms. They don't go through background checks. They can buy knives, baseball bats, tire irons, and cars.

Also, there is a case to be made for people who are adjudicated to be mentally ill to have their rights revoked.

Other than that, laws should punish violent behavior, no matter the weapon used. Trying to make it harder for criminals to get guns typically doesn't work very well. It only makes it harder for the law abiding. I have resigned myself to the fact that we will continue to have background checks. If they are instantaneous and it is the responsibility of the government to prove that someone shouldn't have a firearm, rather than the individual having to prove that they are OK to have one, we will have to plug our noses and live with this, at least for now. There is no way the public will back off from this, even though it probably has no effect on violent crime. Plus, what if someone is barred from possessing a firearm. Should they also be barred from owning knives and other potentially deadly weapons? What about bows and arrows or crossbows?

[44 AMP]

The general public has become firmly wedded to the idea that a background check is part of the necessary process to purchase a firearm. They are convinced that without background checks, they will be less safe, as known criminals will be able to purchase guns at legal dealers. Some even believe that a background check is the only thing stopping terrorists from buying automatic weapons at Wal Mart. (fortunately, not many, but there are some people who believe the most outlandish things)

The next increment being called for in the tightening of restrictions on lawful citizens purchasing firearms is the "closing of the gun show loophole", and calls by the anti-gunners for "registration".

As has been discussed many times, there is no gun show loophole. It is a made up term, a sound bite, used by the antis to mean private sales of firearms. Anywhere, at any time.

The main argument for ending this practice (the right of the property owner to sell their property to whom they deem suitable, without govt permission) is the fact that there are no background checks being done. They generally take one of two main approaches as "solutions" to this "problem".

1) require all sales of firearms to go through an FFL dealer. or...
2) require private citizens to conduct background checks on potential purchasers.

I have issues with both approaches, primarily that of making us bear yet another burden financially, and legally for something that we have always historically been free of. One can only wonder at how the proposed laws would wind up being worded. I have little doubt that they would be written so a to cause the greatest possible inconvenience and potential legal liability to the gun owner as possible.

I also have issues with the idea that gun owners should be penalised if they fail to report the loss of a gun (stolen) within an arbitrary time period. Not against the idea of reporting the loss to the police, but against the idea of having to do it within X days or face fines, or even prosecution! Another fine idea that sounds good and reasonable, but as proposed, makes no allowances for unusual circumstances. Beware the law of unintended consequences!

[USAFNoDak]

Good post 44amp. With respect to private gun sales having to go through a background check, here's some of the faults with such an idea. I know that isn't your idea.

I would be forced to conduct a background check on my own brother if he wanted to purchase one of my firearms. I know my own brother better than the feds do, so that would buy society zip, zero, nada, as far as more "safety" is concerned.

Now, let's say me and my brother are thugs who like to skirt the law. Why would we subject ourselves to a background check? If my brother isn't supposed to have a firearm, it's likely I would already know that. Either I tell him to pound sand, or I laugh with him as we break another silly gun control law. I wish we could liberals to peel the little stickers off of their brain batteries to turn their brains on. Then, they might see how foolish gun control can be. I don't see them turning on their logic circuitry anytime soon, however.

[Shane Tuttle]

You may not care if your neighbor has a rocket launcher and stores C-4 in his basement but I care and don't want him near my house and I don't think his perceived right to have them overrides my right to be safe.

I'd welcome my new neighbor with open arms and a big plate of my wife's best cookin'.:cool:

C4 isn't any more dangerous as me having hundreds of pounds of powder and thousands of primers stored in my basement.

Not related to guns but I remember a debate once about those who rode motorcycles and refused to wear helmets. They crashed, sustained head injuries and became wards of the state (you and me paying taxes) since they had no insurance. So, I guess their decision had an effect on me and I sure don't like it either.

So, you're paralleling an isolated incident to justify robbing the right of individuals that should practice every day?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So, you're paralleling an isolated incident to justify robbing the right of individuals that should practice every day?

No, I am saying that many things we do that we think have no impact on the rights of others in fact do . That was one example.

As to C-4 it would depend on how it is stored and what it is stored with. Since if it explodes it can cause damage to me and mine then yes I have an interest and may through my government keep someone from having it. We have an ordinance in my city here that you cannot discharge a firearm inside the city limits. Some argue that they should be able to do what they wish on their own property but I like the ordinance and am glad it is enforced so I don't get killed by some idiot shooting in his yard and without that law some idiot would be doing it.

I would be forced to conduct a background check on my own brother if he wanted to purchase one of my firearms. I know my own brother better than the feds do, so that would buy society zip, zero, nada, as far as more "safety" is concerned.

No but there are unscrupulous people who will sell a gun to anyone no questions asked and they are the problem. Not you selling to your brother.

Making private sales without a backgound check illegal will stop some of them and those it doesn't stop will do time when they are caught. Under current law today there is nothing but their conscience to stop them and they don't have one of those.

All of us suffer inconvienence and restriction because of the wrongdoing/idiocy of others. Remember that the next time you go thru airport security.

[Shane Tuttle]

All of us suffer inconvienence and restriction because of the wrongdoing/idiocy of others. Remember that the next time you go thru airport security.

That's one of my points. An possible isolated incident shouldn't cause a knee jerk reaction to affect others' rights.

As to C-4 it would depend on how it is stored and what it is stored with. Since if it explodes it can cause damage to me and mine then yes I have an interest and may through my government keep someone from having it.

I think gunpowder can hold its own against C4. I don't see houses across America being blown up along with its neighbors. You think I as a reloader need to have regulations because I stockpile powder and primers?

[44 AMP]

What a wonderful phrase. Almost makes one believe it could be a real thing...

Somehow, over the last couple of generations (primarily) we have changed, from a people who generally understood how the world really works, to one that believes that we have a "right" to safety.

We don't. And anyone who tells you we do, is selling something.

Trouble is that so many have been buying it for so long that many believe that it is the natural order of things. And they get upset when reality forces them to realize that it just isn't so.

BY all means, obey the laws. Play by the rules, and enjoy life as best you can. Just realize that when something bad happens, because someone else isn't playing by the same rules as the rest of us, the answer is not to make more rules.

Nor is the answer to take away fire because someone might get burned.

[USAFNoDak]

Tenn. Gentle. postedMaking private sales without a backgound check illegal will stop some of them and those it doesn't stop will do time when they are caught. Under current law today there is nothing but their conscience to stop them and they don't have one of those.


It may stop some of them, yes. But it may also cause some folks, who would normally follow the law, to start igoring the law, making them criminals.

If we lowered the speed limits to 45 on the freeways, we could get more people to slow down, which would save lives. Wouldn't that be a good thing? The problem is, more people would ignore what they see as a "silly" law and would break it. The law must be grounded in logic to get intelligent people to obey it, unless you make the penalties so stiff that people weigh the risk more than they do the silliness of the law. But that starts us towards a police state where the penalties are too severe for breaking the law as referenced to the amount of benefits there are in obeying the law.

Lets assume the feds pass a law that ALL private sales must have a background check conducted on the buyer. If I sell a gun to my brother, whom I know is not a criminal, but I somehow get caught doing this without a background check, what should be the penalty for me doing so? Would it benefit society to punish me to the full extent of the law? Those issues must be weighed when we talk about having the government get more involved in our day to day lives. What benefit would it be to society to have both me and my brother sitting in jail? Who pays for our families well being? What cost is there to society to pay for our meals, health care and other expenses incurred while imprisoning us? Is that cost worth the zero benefits to society? I wouldn't think so.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That's one of my points. An possible isolated incident shouldn't cause a knee jerk reaction to affect others' rights.

They aren't "isolated" incidents. They would happen repeatedly if not checked.

I don't see houses across America being blown up along with its neighbors. You think I as a reloader need to have regulations because I stockpile powder and primers?

Because most houses in America don't store C-4 in their homes as it is against most laws and ordinances. Most people obey laws and in doing so keep us safer. Just because some don't obey the laws doesn't invalidate the need for said laws.

Actually, the powder you keep IS regulated as are the primers you store as well. If the were within a legally determined class you would not be able to store them in your home. C-4 is not in the same class as smokeless powder.

Nor is the answer to take away fire because someone might get burned.

Nor is the answer to let people start fires whenever and wherever they please. However, we can regulate fire and we should.

If we lowered the speed limits to 45 on the freeways, we could get more people to slow down, which would save lives. Wouldn't that be a good thing?

It did save lives and gas when it was 55. However, political leaders who were urged by their voters raised the limits back as the body politic decided they would rather burn the gas and take the additional risk. So, if you can get that same body to repeal all laws and regulations concerning guns (and explosives for Tuttle8;)) then do it. I don't think you will be successful but that is democracy.

[Al Norris]

They aren't "isolated" incidents.
When considered in toto, they are/were isolated events. Simple mass reporting by the media makes them appear to be otherwise.

One could look at the spate of reported kidnapings (from media reports last year), and conclude that violent kidnapings were on the rise (and many did so conclude). Yet that supposition was not supported by the facts.

Public perception, as related by media over reporting a series of events, does not always reflect reality.
They would happen repeatedly if not checked.
Such events have happened in the past, without the restrictions of the 1968 GCA. They happened afterwords in increasing frequency. They are happening with less actual frequency, now (See the latest UCR). It would appear, on the surface, that the current regulations are in fact working.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causality.
Just because some don't obey the laws doesn't invalidate the need for said laws.
Nor does such validate any need to promote more strict laws. To continue to make something "more unlawful," is the road to tyranny.

To use the drug laws as an analog: More restrictions have done nothing more than make ever increasing classes of criminals from otherwise law abiding citizens. More restrictions have made government more powerful and less responsive to the citizens they represent. More restrictions have not decreased drug use by one iota.
Nor is the answer to take away fire because someone might get burned.Nor is the answer to let people start fires whenever and wherever they please. However, we can regulate fire and we should.
We have many examples of the expanding power(s) of Commerce Clause legislation and the resulting expanding police powers of the Federal Government. The issue of "public safety" is at the root of expanding powers via the over-broad interpretation of the so-called "Welfare Clause."

I would argue against continuing regulation and control, at the national level, for local or regional issues.

[USAFNoDak]

Tenn. Gentle. posted:It did save lives and gas when it was 55. However, political leaders who were urged by their voters raised the limits back as the body politic decided they would rather burn the gas and take the additional risk. So, if you can get that same body to repeal all laws and regulations concerning guns (and explosives for Tuttle8) then do it. I don't think you will be successful but that is democracy.


It may have saved lives and gas. If 55 can save lives and gas, imagine what 45 would do? Why don't we implement a 45 mph speed limit law on our freeways for the public safety and national security? Why did voters urge their political leaders to raise the laws back up from 55? Could it be that it took much longer to get to where we needed to go? Could it be that the hauling of freight and other goods was less efficient at 55 vs. 70 mph on the freeways? There must have been a reason that the people were objecting to the 55 mph speed limits which was outside of "safety" or national security.

I never said we should repeal ALL gun control laws. Why do you jump to such a conclusion? We didn't repeal the speed limit laws, we adjusted them. I think we have a few too many gun control laws which don't do any good. They tend to hamper the law abiding citizen more than providing any benefits regarding public safety. We need to scale some of them back. We don't need to get any more strict. That was my point. Can we get the votes to scale back some gun control laws? Maybe we can. Many people believed we could not get CCW laws implemented in more than 40 states. Many people thought Minnesota, the land of 10K liberals, would never go for a "shall issue" CCW law. But we did it. That's democracy. Sometimes it works fer ya, sometimes it works agin ya. However, we are not really a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. We democratically elect our leaders who then create laws and vote on them. But we do have a Constitution in place which tells the government that they have limited powers and they cannot pass laws which violate our civil rights, no matter how many votes they can get or how many of their constituents support such laws.

By the way, if we locked up more violent felons and for longer periods of time, would that help with crime rates? You're darn tootin' it would. Why don't we do that? The liberals complain that it costs too much, too many minorities would be in prison, and that prison doesn't rehabilate criminals, but rather makes them worse. That's their arguements. Why they think letting violent criminals out of prison early makes society safer I'll never understand. Maybe it really doesn't have anything to do with public safety, but is more centered on political power and issues.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

When considered in toto, they are/were isolated events.

Not sure what we are talking about but isolated to me means alone and solitary. As to people having head injuries from motorcycle accidents and the efficacy of helmets I think that doesn't fall under the "isolated" category unless you mean it just doesn't happen a lot. However, few dispute the lvies that have been saved by wearing them and if the taxpayer didn't have to foot the bill for the indigent who dumped his/her bike then the point would be different. As I said before, my real point was that we don't live on islands and things we want to have freedom to do might impact others and so others may have an interest in regulating what we do.

Such events have happened in the past, without the restrictions of the 1968 GCA. They happened afterwords in increasing frequency. They are happening with less actual frequency, now (See the latest UCR). It would appear, on the surface, that the current regulations are in fact working.
Correlation does not necessarily equal causality.

Agree, but as to your statement above I submit that the GCA of 1968 was the result of a social change towrds violence that was occurring in our country at that time. That caused the GCA and not the other way around. Recapping, the gun laws I think are more a reflection of reality in society than a cause or catalyst for social behavior. Sure the media plays into that but violent acts uncommon forty years ago are becoming more so today (ironically IMO fueled by said media).

Nor does such validate any need to promote more strict laws.

I think the question there is; Are those laws working in a way they were designed to? I am not advocating more laws unless the current ones are not working. However, as Dr. Kleck said when asked why America wasn't the safest country in the world since we have so many guns, "Crime has many causes and many are the deterrents as well."

To use the drug laws as an analog: More restrictions have done nothing more than make ever increasing classes of criminals from otherwise law abiding citizens.

Au Contraire (that's french!:D) Here in Tennessee, we have to register when we buy stuff like sudafed and although it has not gotten rid of meth use it has almost completely shutdown the homegrown labs which were creating great health hazards for children and grownups. Remember Quaalude? (of course you do;)) can't really find it today as it was synthetic and they were able to regulate it out of existence. We still have drug users and we will still have criminals with guns but solving that is I agree beyond only law.

I never said we should repeal all laws. Why to do you jump to such conclusions?

I didn't jump (I can't I'm too darn old) to any conclusions. All I have said is: 1) The idea that you can do something and not effect the rights or safety of another may not be as broad as one thinks. and that 2) Laws and control is not always bad. As to guns, some laws IMO are good.

By the way, if we locked up more violent felons, would that help with crime rates? You're darn tootin' it would.

Sure it would and it has. Many claim the crime reductions we see today are caused by mandatory sentencing but there are other factors too. Gun Control laws will not by themselves reduce crime, no argument.

[USAFNoDak]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
I never said we should repeal all laws. Why to do you jump to such conclusions?
I didn't jump (I can't I'm too darn old) to any conclusions. All I have said is: 1) The idea that you can do something and not effect the rights or safety of another may not be as broad as one thinks. and that 2) Laws and control is not always bad. As to guns, some laws IMO are good.


I was responding to this post of yours Tennessee Gentleman:It did save lives and gas when it was 55. However, political leaders who were urged by their voters raised the limits back as the body politic decided they would rather burn the gas and take the additional risk. So, if you can get that same body to repeal all laws and regulations concerning guns (and explosives for Tuttle8) then do it. I don't think you will be successful but that is democracy.

It sounded as if you thought I was for repealing all gun control laws. I don't need to quibble over it, however.

I also understand that some laws do have benefits. Not in that they prevent anything, but in that they deal appropriately with how the offender is punished. Punishment is the meat of the law. It determines how much someone is willing to risk to operate or behave outside of the law. We can go too far in that regard.

For example, I don't know if it's still the case, but at one time, in California, the penalty for merely possessing an unregistered "assault weapon", even though you committed no other crime was a 5 year, mandatory, prison sentence. The penalty for a first time rapist who was caught and convicted, was only 18 months and most offenders served only a third of that. I don't see how the illogical proportionment of those penalties keeps society safe. They should have been reveresed at the very least. But public perception was manipulated, through politicians and politics, so that there was more fear regarding a person who has broken no law other than to have an unregisterd semiautomatic firearm, than there was for a rapist.

[Al Norris]

No but there are unscrupulous people who will sell a gun to anyone no questions asked and they are the problem. Not you selling to your brother.

Making private sales without a backgound check illegal will stop some of them and those it doesn't stop will do time when they are caught. Under current law today there is nothing but their conscience to stop them and they don't have one of those.

All of us suffer inconvienence and restriction because of the wrongdoing/idiocy of others. Remember that the next time you go thru airport security.That's one of my points. An possible isolated incident shouldn't cause a knee jerk reaction to affect others' rights.
Just so we are both on the same page, I referenced the complete quote Tuttle8 was responding to. Since he only quoted the part I highlighted above, I can see some confusion.

My quoting only part of your response to Tuttle, was in direct reference to the full quote above and had nothing to do with the previous details of headgear regulation by the States.

Isolated in the context we are talking about, means more like being "not close together," as within the larger population.

I would have thought that my example of the multitude of reported kidnapings, provided the exact context.

The 1968 GCA was a knee-jerk reaction to the deaths of the two Kennedys and MLK. That is well documented.
Sure the media plays into that but violent acts uncommon forty years ago are becoming more so today (ironically IMO fueled by said media).
Ironically, the media plays a much larger role today than then. Then, news was reported. Now, news is almost manufactured.

Ironic also that the UCR reports (this includes the statistically insignificant blip of 2007) less crime now, than then. Accounting for the population increase over the last 40 years, one would expect it to be the same or higher. It isn't.

However, one simply can't say with a straight face, that gun control is at work in the diminishing crime stats. Several major studies have all concluded that gun laws have little if any affect upon crime. Much to the consternation of those that funded the studies.

I'll save the Pseudoephedrine/meth connection for another time. Suffice it to say, correlation is not causality, here too.

[Hellbilly5000]

No gun laws are good laws or are acceptable
If we have to have gun laws make then about education and not gun control Gun control is hitting my target when I shoot

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Isolated in the context we are talking about, means more like being "not close together," as within the larger population.

I would have thought that my example of the multitude of reported kidnapings, provided the exact context.

Understand. My point about airport security was more to the restrictions we face on aircraft because of hijacking/terrorist stuff that occurred before.

The 1968 GCA was a knee-jerk reaction to the deaths of the two Kennedys and MLK. That is well documented.

Yes, but don't forget the events leading up to it beyond the assasinations, anmely the race riots of the mid-60s. JFK's started it, but in between you had Charlie Whitman, Richard Speck and others who along with the media showed a trend of change towards violence we hadn't seen since the 1920/30s gangster times.

Al, I just now noticed why I had so much trouble with your screen name. I thought you were patterning it after either Herod Antipas or St. Antipas the Bishop of Pergamos. Why do you spell it that way? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Shane Tuttle]

As to people having head injuries from motorcycle accidents and the efficacy of helmets I think that doesn't fall under the "isolated" category unless you mean it just doesn't happen a lot.

This is what I mean...an isolated event, not an event in isolation.

Actually, the powder you keep IS regulated as are the primers you store as well. If the were within a legally determined class you would not be able to store them in your home. C-4 is not in the same class as smokeless powder.

OK, if you want to get real technical rather than understanding the point of analagies, then I'll change the method of getting my point across:

You're so worried about the highly unlikely event that fellow taxpayers will have to pay for a motorcyclist's medical bills because he/she wasn't wearing a helmet in an accident, right? You think a helmet law that infringes the right of the person to choose to wear it trumps taxpayers' money, right? Tell you what. Pick a state, ANY state. Find hard data on the amount of money the state had to spend on medical bills due to a person not wearing a helmet in an accident. Remember to include only data from insured motorists since uninsured shouldn't have been on the road to begin with. Now, take that dollar amount that the state spent and divide it by the state's population. Then get back to me on the insane dollar amount is paid to allow a person to do what the hell they want to their own body.

Also, keep in mind that although wearing a helmet is generally safer, there have been injuries that I personally know have happened when wearing one and wouldn't have had a head injury if he didn't wear a helmet.

Explosives? OK, how about my shop? I have several vehicles with gas tanks. I have several gas cans throughout the shop,also. Don't forget the lawn tractor, weed eater, push mower, leaf blower, pressure washer, edger, degreaser cans, and anything else highly flammable. When I weld, there's sparks galore. Do you think there's regulations as to how much flammable fluid I'm allowed? You think I have to have a license to has mass amounts of flammable fluid? Why not? In the end, it doesn't matter if it's an explosive or flammable fluids. They both can cause extensive damage if ignited. It becomes a MOOT POINT on what a person has.

Au Contraire (that's french!) Here in Tennessee, we have to register when we buy stuff like sudafed and although it has not gotten rid of meth use it has almost completely shutdown the homegrown labs which were creating great health hazards for children and grownups. Remember Quaalude? (of course you do) can't really find it today as it was synthetic and they were able to regulate it out of existence. We still have drug users and we will still have criminals with guns but solving that is I agree beyond only law.

And this is probably the easiest point to refute. Tell me, has the meth addicts just quit using meth since they have a hard time getting Sudafed? If you think so, I must say you are sadly mistaken.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

OK, if you want to get real technical rather than understanding the point of analagies, then I'll change the method of getting my point across:

No need to get that technical, that is not where I am going. However, comparing an explosive like C-4 to small amounts of gasoline in your garage is a stretch (set off a block of C-4 compared to a gallon of gas and see) and yes if you had enough gasoline (like an underground 10000 gallon tank) it would be regulated and probably inspected by the government.

And this is probably the easiest point to refute. Tell me, has the meth addicts just quit using meth since they have a hard time getting Sudafed? If you think so, I must say you are sadly mistaken.

Reread my quote. I acknowledged that it didn't stop use but it DID stop homemade labs which were a huge health problem to the addict's neighbors.

Then get back to me on the insane dollar amount is paid to allow a person to do what the hell they want to their own body.

Hell, look at smoking. You think that isn't costing you money? (I assume you don't smoke here as I don't) It sure does and so whenever they want to tax it I vote yes to pay for the medical costs associated with it.

[Shane Tuttle]

No need to get that technical, that is not where I am going. However, comparing an explosive like C-4 to small amounts of gasoline in your garage is a stretch (set off a block of C-4 compared to a gallon of gas and see) and yes if you had enough gasoline (like an underground 10000 gallon tank) it would be regulated and probably inspected by the government.

I calculated approximately 300 gallons worth of flammable liquids in my shop alone. Again, you are splitting hairs. Again, my point is anyone can store plenty of flammable fluids that can easily cause catastrophic damage to not only my home, but my neighbor's. If you can't see this point there's no more need for me to debate. And, by the way, gasoline ignites quite a bit easier than C4.

Reread my quote. I acknowledged that it didn't stop use but it DID stop homemade labs which were a huge health problem to the addict's neighbors.

Fair enough. Then I redirect. You really think homegrown labs have all but stopped because of the law abiding citizen can only buy one box of Sudafed? Maybe you need to look a little closer around town instead of seeing it no longer reported on the 10 o'clock news...

Hell, look at smoking. You think that isn't costing you money? (I assume you don't smoke here as I don't) It sure does and so whenever they want to tax it I vote yes to pay for the medical costs associated with it.

To keep from drifting, I'll just say this. I can't stand cigarette smoke. I do whatever I can to stay away from it. I hate the smell of nicotine on smokers' clothes, their house, cars, etc. I hate sitting in a non-smoking area of a restaurant right next to a smoking area. But I DO NOT SUPPORT taxes on tobacco products nor do I support smoking bans in private establishments. You think the government is going to just drop the programs funded by tobacco taxes if users quit and the revenue isn't nearly as much? This is a whole 'nuther topic of discussion. The cost of me, the taxpayer isn't because of smokers. This is one key issue that you're barking up the wrong tree in the wrong park. Hey, while we're at it, would you support an environmental tax on ammunition due to the chemicals released in the air when we fire our guns at the range? Would this be a reasonable gun law to you?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I calculated approximately 300 gallons worth of flammable liquids in my shop alone. Again, you are splitting hairs. Again, my point is anyone can store plenty of flammable fluids that can easily cause catastrophic damage to not only my home, but my neighbor's. If you can't see this point there's no more need for me to debate. And, by the way, gasoline ignites quite a bit easier than C4.

No I am not spliting hairs but rather I am pointing out illogical comparisons. Your flammable materials in your garage do not pose the same hazard as high explosives and that I agree is beyond debate. And BTW equal amounts of C4 to gasoline does not make the same boom.

You really think homegrown labs have all but stopped because of the law abiding citizen can only buy one box of Sudafed?

I think that addicts and meth makers can no longer go into Costco and buy bulk Pseudoephedrine to make meth in their homes and that is because LE has reported it not the media. Unless you think they are lying.

But I DO NOT SUPPORT taxes on tobacco products nor do I support smoking bans in private establishments.

I do and will continue to for the reasons stated. If smokers can get the votes to change it then I guess we'll have smoking in restaurants again.

Hey, while we're at it, would you support an environmental tax on ammunition due to the chemicals released in the air when we fire our guns at the range?

Not unless you could prove it was a danger to others. I do support efforts that regulate lead in some hunting areas and so do many hunters. I have read that if you go to Thunder Ranch it is lead free.

[OnTheFly]

Wow...there is some great discourse going on here. Some very well thought out and compelling arguments.

My thoughts on gun laws...

There are many laws on the books regarding criminal acts with guns. Why do we have to clutter the books with gun specific legislation? Shouldn't it be equally as heinous to commit a crime whether the perpetrator used a knife, gun, or baseball bat? Why do we allow the laws to target guns? Why not target the evil doers for their acts or intent?

I don't believe in laws that allow the government to track ownership of guns.

I also don't believe in laws that unreasonably increase the cost of our right. It would be no different than the government adding fees, taxes, and surcharges to the process of becoming a registered voter. They could easily price many people out of the right to vote. If there are costs associated with supporting 2A rights (or any rights for that matter), the people (and I mean ALL the people) should bear the cost so as not to diminish these rights.

Fly

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Not related to guns but I remember a debate once about those who rode motorcycles and refused to wear helmets. They crashed, sustained head injuries and became wards of the state (you and me paying taxes) since they had no insurance. So, I guess their decision had an effect on me and I sure don't like it either.

Not quite the same thing as motorcycles nor their use are protected or even mentioned in the Constitution. However, just for the sake of argument, why stop at forcing people to wear helmets? Why not ban motorcycles and any other motorized vehicle that will go in excess of 70mph while we're at it? The reduction in auto accidents would certainly save the taxpayers some money wouldn't it? Of course few people would support such extreme measures right away, but the point is you begin down a slippery slope.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Today, unlike a hundred years ago there is a lot more interconnectivity between us at least as far as our obligations to Caesar. Again, those devilish details, made each law they pass subject to that debate.

You may not care if your neighbor has a rocket launcher and stores C-4 in his basement but I care and don't want him near my house and I don't think his perceived right to have them overrides my right to be safe.


Point of fact I'd be a lot more nervous about my neighbor having an anhydrous ammonia tank or a leaky propane cylinder as both of those are probably more likely to cause an accident than C4 or a Rocket Launcher. Basing laws on someone's feeling of safety, while it may sound nice and utopian, unfortunately just isn't feasable. Afterall, if we couldn't have anything that made someone feel unsafe then we wouldn't be able to own any type of firearm at all, most types of automobile, or most species of animals that are commonly kept as pets. Again claiming that your right to a feeling of safety overrides my right to ownership begins down a slippery slope. I could very easily say that your German Shepherd's teeth, that snubby revolver that you carry in your pants pocket, and your SUV's emissions make me feel unsafe. Does that mean that all these things should be banned? Certainly there are people out there who think so.

[Shane Tuttle]

No I am not spliting hairs but rather I am pointing out illogical comparisons. Your flammable materials in your garage do not pose the same hazard as high explosives and that I agree is beyond debate. And BTW equal amounts of C4 to gasoline does not make the same boom.

You know what, TG, you can dance around the issue or just choose not to see that your point just might not be valid. If you think 300 gallons of flammable liquids won't do any damage to my neighbor's home, that's plain ignorant.

I think that addicts and meth makers can no longer go into Costco and buy bulk Pseudoephedrine to make meth in their homes and that is because LE has reported it not the media. Unless you think they are lying.

Man, do I really need to make my points that simple? Just because they regulated the number of boxes of Sudafed one can buy doesn't mean meth labs in homes are almost nonexistant. Drug users will just find another way, just like criminals that want to use a gun for a crime. You can support the ban of automatic firearms, but a criminal can still get access to them. Anyone that thinks they can't is living in a dreamworld. Therefore, these types of laws that affect the law abiding DOES NOT with the would be criminal.

I do and will continue to for the reasons stated. If smokers can get the votes to change it then I guess we'll have smoking in restaurants again.

Sorry to hear that you're willing to give up liberty for "safety" and security...

Not unless you could prove it was a danger to others. I do support efforts that regulate lead in some hunting areas and so do many hunters. I have read that if you go to Thunder Ranch it is lead free.

I don't need to prove it. It's already been proven. And again, I'm sorry that you're willing to give up liberty....

I'll be looking forward to seeing those stats about taxpayer dollars being spent on those medical bills for the helmetless motorcyclist...

Again claiming that your right to a feeling of safety overrides my right to ownership begins down a slippery slope.

I wish I could have just said this and be done with it...

[cjw3cma]

Context: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning

Preamble to the Constitution: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

2nd Amendment: 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 2nd Amendment cannot stand on its own; it must be kept in context with the preamble to our Constitution. With that stated, gun laws are allowed by the Constitution at both the federal and state levels.

Too bad there isn't an enforcement clause in the Constitution that states, when a law affecting the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution overall is enacted by the Congress, it shall be enforced.

[44 AMP]

With that stated, gun laws are allowed by the Constitution at both the federal and state levels.


And so, where does one draw the line between "laws allowed" and "infringement"? I have my answer, Sarah Barady has another.

I'll say it again, I see no point to laws that place restrictions and requirements on gun ownership.

I do see the utility, usefulness, and need for laws that provide restrictions on, and punishments for, improper and unacceptable gun use.

The majority of laws on gun use are not considered gun control laws.

A law saying you can't shoot rabbits (or anything else) from the back of a moving streetcar is fine with me. A law saying you can't buy a magazine that holds more than 10 (pick a number) of rounds is not.

Gun control laws, particularly in recent decades, have all focused on ownership and possession restrictions. Either outright bans on private citizens being allowed to purchase certain items, or requirements that the citizens prove to the govt that they are "responsible" enough to own a gun, by some kind of licensing process.

Myself, I can live with the laws as the currently exist, although I would be much happier with the laws as they existed when I began shooting as a hobby (pre 1968). I see no benefit from the endless addition of rules and restrictions about ownership and acquisition, except to aggravate people like me, and give the govt another source of income, including that derived from the otherwise innocent people who run afoul of gun control laws.

But that's the whole point in the long run, isn't it? By making legal gun ownership as complicated and expensive as they can, they discourage people from doing it. Given enough time, the number of legal gun owners will drop to the point where they are inconsequential. It isn't, and never was, about public safety.

[USAFNoDak]

44 Amp posted:
It isn't, and never was, about public safety.


You said a mouthful there 44 Amp. Besides, despite a quite significant increase in the number of guns over the past 30 years, we've seen a decline in violent crime rates, with a small, exceptional, increase (blip) in 2007.

The crime rates never went up when the "so-called-assault-weapons" ban expired in 2004 as was predicted by the anti gun rights crowd. They crowed like roosters that cops would be gunned down left and right by these guns. They yelled that terrorists would now be able to get deadly weapons to kill innocent americans. That did not happen in any widespread manner. They were flat out wrong, again.

The government conducted a study over the 10 years the ban was in place. Predictably, the ban had no effect on crime rates. At least, the effect was minimal enough to be insignificant. Thus, it was allowed to lapse, despite the screaming meemies on the left, such as Feinstein, Schumer, Gore, the Clintons, Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarman, Paul Helmke, and others.

Gun control is "sold" to the public as a "public safety measure". It is nothing of the sort, and numerous, intelligent, well informed, posters have provided logical reasoning as to why it is not a benefit to public safety in their posts above and in many other threads in these forums.

The anti's will seldom, if ever, admit defeat, however. They've backed off for now on trying to pass a new assault weapons ban, as Barack and his cronies would love to do. They know the resistance is too high right now. As Ahhhnold says in many of his cheesy action flicks, "They'll be back!" You can count on it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You know what, TG, you can dance around the issue or just choose not to see that your point just might not be valid.

Tuttle and Webley, here is what I think you are missing. Lots of things in the world have a potential danger if misused or when care is not taken with their use. You can pick a million things that can adversely impact another person's safety and say "What about banning/regulating these?" It is a strawman.

When we make laws and regulations we base them on risk assessments and give and take in the public forum. Many of the items you and Webley mention are in fact quite regulated and prohibited to own without condition and use in certain places and in certain ways. They may not require all the same regs but they are in many cases controlled. In Germany, on most of the Autobahn there is no speed limit. Here there is. However, getting a driver's license in Germany is very hard, requires a lot more training and is expensive while most people there don't own cars. In the USA a monkey can get a driver's license and most own cars so the trade off is that we have speed limits and Germany doesn't. No free lunch.

The issue of the thread is firearms. We have a RKBA but it is a limited right subject to regulation as are all rights in the BOR. Lots of things can be dangerous but our society has determined that firearms are especially so (they are, for the most part, designed to kill) and therefore they are regulated more than a brick is. You can argue that a firearm is no more dangerous than a brick but that argument won't hold in public discourse and only gun nuts will listen to you.

Therefore, these types of laws that affect the law abiding DOES NOT with the would be criminal.

You are stating the obvious and make no rational point. We shouldn't have laws because criminals will not obey them? Makes no sense. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Should we make theft legal because shoplifters aren't going to obey the law, anyway? The criminal law exists so that those who break them can be punished. Most people WILL obey laws and they are the ones who benefit from them. Enforcement is what drives others who choose not to obey to compliance or sanction.

Sorry to hear that you're willing to give up liberty for "safety" and security...

See my earlier posts on the social contract and that Hobbes dude. I prefer a little less "liberty" (like keeping C4 in my basement) to the law of the jungle where my nutty neighbor stores TNT in his garage.

I'll be looking forward to seeing those stats about taxpayer dollars being spent on those medical bills for the helmetless motorcyclist...


Here is a link about helmets. http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html Even though it does not cite exact costs for paying for indigents it does speak to the Health Care costs which most of us pay if we have insurance. Bottomline; people who don't wear helmets and ride motorcycles and crash cost you and me more money than if they wore them. I don't want to pay that bill so yeah I will vote to reduce some other's liberty that I might have to pay for later.

Again claiming that your right to a feeling of safety overrides my right to ownership begins down a slippery slope.

Another strawman that both the Brady's and the NRA use. There is no slippery slope that is not constrained by your participation in the political process.

[cjw3cma]

I'll say it again, I see no point to laws that place restrictions and requirements on gun ownership.

I for one do not want a mentally disabled individual to have a firearm until such time that a consensus of qualified experts have seemed it not harmful to the general public. Same goes for a convicted felon (of any charge); once you cause harm to our citizens you lose your rights until deemed otherwise as stated above.

But the majority of what you stated I agree with wholeheartedly.

[Shane Tuttle]

You are stating the obvious and make no rational point. We shouldn't have laws because criminals will not obey them? Makes no sense. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Should we make theft legal because shoplifters aren't going to obey the law, anyway? The criminal law exists so that those who break them can be punished. Most people WILL obey laws and they are the ones who benefit from them. Enforcement is what drives others who choose not to obey to compliance or sanction.

Nowhere did I say we should have no laws. Seeing that yet again you contorted the context of my statements I can understand where you think it isn't rational.

Tell me how gunowners benefit from only having 10rd magazines, not being allowed to own autos, can't even own a semi-auto handgun? Your denial that the there's no slippery slope that is not constrained by your participation in the political process is invalid. You think we can vote for supreme court justices?

Bottomline; people who don't wear helmets and ride motorcycles and crash cost you and me more money than if they wore them. I don't want to pay that bill so yeah I will vote to reduce some other's liberty that I might have to pay for later.

Hey, while you're at it, why don't you push for banning motorcycles altogether? The injury/death rate is enormously higher than driving a car. Surely our insurance rates would be a couple bucks less if that happens. That way, the whole helmet issue would be taken care of in a jiffy and we'll all be a few bucks richer and safer...:barf:

See my earlier posts on the social contract and that Hobbes dude. I prefer a little less "liberty" (like keeping C4 in my basement) to the law of the jungle where my nutty neighbor stores TNT in his garage.

Might as well substitute C4 with AR15s, too. I'm pretty sure you'd be OK with that, also. The big difference between your beliefs and mine is I actually have a hard line where enough is enough. I see my beliefs are pretty easily supported by the Constitution, BOR, and the Founding Fathers' intentions. You seem to base "reasonable regulations" on what the flavor of the month is. Ever put a frog in a pot of cool water and slowly turned up the heat?

I think it's best I bow out. I've tried to explain the best I can but others here are better at stating basically what I think.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttle8
You know what, TG, you can dance around the issue or just choose not to see that your point just might not be valid.

Tuttle and Webley, here is what I think you are missing. Lots of things in the world have a potential danger if misused or when care is not taken with their use. You can pick a million things that can adversely impact another person's safety and say "What about banning/regulating these?" It is a strawman.


TG, I think you missed my point. My point was that it is not feasable to base laws solely on what makes someone feel safe or unsafe. I brought up SUV's and dogs not to compare their possible danger to firearms, but to illustrate the fact that feelings of safety cannot be the deciding factor in what is legal and what is illegal. Attempting to turn my argument into something that it is not and then refuting it as ridiculous is, by definition, a strawman.

When we make laws and regulations we base them on risk assessments and give and take in the public forum. Many of the items you and Webley mention are in fact quite regulated and prohibited to own without condition and use in certain places and in certain ways. They may not require all the same regs but they are in many cases controlled.

Really, are SUV's more difficult to purchase than hybrid cars? No, in most places they're not. If you can afford one then you can obtain one. There you don't have to pass a special test, make an application process, or get some public official's permission to buy an SUV. Yes, certain breeds of dog are banned in certain localities, but this isn't really all that different from the gun bans in places like Chicago or the assault weapons bans in places like California that so many of us believe to be unreasonable and unconstitutional.

The issue of the thread is firearms. We have a RKBA but it is a limited right subject to regulation as are all rights in the BOR. Lots of things can be dangerous but our society has determined that firearms are especially so (they are, for the most part, designed to kill) and therefore they are regulated more than a brick is. You can argue that a firearm is no more dangerous than a brick but that argument won't hold in public discourse and only gun nuts will listen to you.

Yet another strawman argument. No one has said that a firearm is no more dangerous than a brick so you're refuting something that was never an issue to begin with. What we are saying is that many types of firearms are not so deadly that they warrant stricter regualtion than other types of firearms. You're attempting to make the discussion broader than it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttle8
Therefore, these types of laws that affect the law abiding DOES NOT with the would be criminal.

You are stating the obvious and make no rational point. We shouldn't have laws because criminals will not obey them? Makes no sense. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Should we make theft legal because shoplifters aren't going to obey the law, anyway? The criminal law exists so that those who break them can be punished. Most people WILL obey laws and they are the ones who benefit from them. Enforcement is what drives others who choose not to obey to compliance or sanction.


The point is most gun laws are redundant and serve only to place unnecessary burden on law abiding citizens. A law is only as good as the people who respect and obey it. Supposedly, the point of a gun ban is to reduce violent crime. However, a person willing to commit a violent crime obviously has no respect for the law and therefore will likely have little concern for a broken gun law. The law abiding citizen, on the other hand, is prevented from owning something so that he can't do something that he never would have done in the first place. Our point is not that we should have no law, but rather that the laws and penalties for violent crime are, for the most part, sufficient and that most gun laws do little to prevent such crimes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Again claiming that your right to a feeling of safety overrides my right to ownership begins down a slippery slope.

Another strawman that both the Brady's and the NRA use. There is no slippery slope that is not constrained by your participation in the political process.

Really, so why is the city of Gary, IN still able to bring frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry in spite of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act? Why do we have the '89 Assault Weapons Import Ban which was never voted on by Congress yet still enforced? Why do we have the ATF, whose employees I do not select or vote for, continually harassing law abiding gun owners. Why has the Secretary of Homeland Security, who was appointed rather than elected, labeled anyone who owns a gun as a potential terrorist who should recieve extra scrutiny from law enforcement?

When you enact a law for a certain reason, you set a precident. Banning something based solely on someone's feelings of safety leads to certain questions: "If we can ban this to make you feel safe, why can't we ban that to make me feel safe?" "Why is your feeling of safety more important than mine?" "Why am I being discriminated against?"

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Webley,

In a word; Horse Hockey!

The OP is about reasonable gun laws. Every single time one of these threads comes up yourself and a predictable group of others pop up and use the same old tired strawmen arguments starting with;

We should have very very little or no regulation of firearms because;

a. They are no more dangerous than (take your pick) kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats, gasoline etc.

and

b. Only law-abiding citizens will obey laws and criminals won't so the laws are useless.

and

c. I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't impact someone else's rights (despite the fact that I and others keep showing you that much of what individuals do DOES effect others)

TG, I think you missed my point. My point was that it is not feasable to base laws solely on what makes someone feel safe or unsafe.

When we make laws and regulations we base them on risk assessments and give and take in the public forum.

No reference to feelings. Strawman, refuted.

Go back and read the thread and we you will see all those predictable references to cars and gasoline and whatnot. These are tired strawman arguments and will not play in the public forum any more than will the emotional arguments of the Brady's.

Gun are designed to kill people and they are inherently dangerous and to argue otherwise will make you look silly to an objective party. If we are going to win this debate we need to expand our thinking beyond cliche'.

You can do better than this guys!

[44 AMP]

But they exist nonetheless.
Gun are designed to kill people and they are inherently dangerous
TG, I guess we ought to agree that we assess risks differently.

I do not see guns as inherently dangerous. Unlike explosives and flammables, which, under the right conditions can "go off" by themselves, and therefore pose a valid risk to public safety, guns cannot. It takes deliberate human action for a gun to be "dangerous".

Knives are designed to cut things. Swords are designed to kill. And while we have laws about the public use and carry of such implements, we don't have those kind of laws about purchase and ownership, generally. They are heading that way in England, now that they have banned guns and are finding out that taking away legal gun ownership doesn't solve their problems, it only creates new ones.

Do I favor mental deficients (those unable to understand the consequences of their actions) being allowed to buy guns? No. Nor do I feel they should drive cars, play with matches, handle sharp objects, or hold public office. But until, and unless, they are so adjudicated, forbidding them their rights (in the name of public safety) is IMHO the wrong thing to do, the same as it is wrong to do to mentally competent people, without proven cause.

When someone harms others with a gun, knife, gallon of gas, or whatever, punishment should be certain, swift, merciless, and come down on them like the hammer of the gods (allowing due process, of course). But until then, we should be allowed to own such property as we wish, unfettered by govt. restrictions. That is my risk assessment. You are, of course entitled to disagree. And in our system, if there are more of you than there are of me, your way becomes law.

The first rule of medicine is (supposedly) "do no harm". Too bad it isn't the first rule of politics as well.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
a. They are no more dangerous than (take your pick) kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats, gasoline etc.


I've never said that and I challenge you to point out where I have (taking the context into consideration of course). My comparison to vehicles and animals was explained at length in my previous post and nowhere did I suggest that they are equally dangerous as firearms.

b. Only law-abiding citizens will obey laws and criminals won't so the laws are useless.


Nor did I say that. I said that the majority of gun laws are redundant because there are already far more serious laws with much more severe concequences against violent crimes. Violent crime, after all, is what gun control is supposed to prevent isn't it?

c. I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't impact someone else's rights (despite the fact that I and others keep showing you that much of what individuals do DOES effect others)


As it pertains to the current discussion, no you have not. You've only managed to come up with a completely unrelated dissertation about motorcycle helmets. Whether or not I own a certain type of gun affects my neighbor in no way whatsoever unless I misuse that gun. Because a single-shot rifle can cause injury or death if misused just as easily as an AR-15 can, I see no reason that one should be more heavily restricted than the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
TG, I think you missed my point. My point was that it is not feasable to base laws solely on what makes someone feel safe or unsafe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
When we make laws and regulations we base them on risk assessments and give and take in the public forum.

No reference to feelings. Strawman, refuted.

In post #48, you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Everyone should have the right to do whatever they wish so long as what they do does not harm or infringe upon the rights of someone else.

Spoken like a true Libertarian. However, as 44 AMP mentioned earlier the devil IS in the details. Lots of arguments can be made about what infringes on the rights of others.

Not related to guns but I remember a debate once about those who rode motorcycles and refused to wear helmets. They crashed, sustained head injuries and became wards of the state (you and me paying taxes) since they had no insurance. So, I guess their decision had an effect on me and I sure don't like it either.

Today, unlike a hundred years ago there is a lot more interconnectivity between us at least as far as our obligations to Caesar. Again, those devilish details, made each law they pass subject to that debate.

You may not care if your neighbor has a rocket launcher and stores C-4 in his basement but I care and don't want him near my house and I don't think his perceived right to have them overrides my right to be safe.


You do not think your neighbor should be able to own certain things because you don't feel safe if he does. Regardless of the fact that other common and perfectly legal items represent just as much a safety hazard to you as the items you mention, those items still make you feel unsafe and so, according to you they should be illegal.

Go back and read the thread and we you will see all those predictable references to cars and gasoline and whatnot. These are tired strawman arguments and will not play in the public forum any more than will the emotional arguments of the Brady's.

Gun are designed to kill people and they are inherently dangerous and to argue otherwise will make you look silly to an objective party. If we are going to win this debate we need to expand our thinking beyond cliche'.


By putting words into other people's mouths, as you just have, and then refuting that which they never claimed, which you just did, you are by definition creating a strawman and then knocking him down. TG, I expected better of you.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I've never said that

Sure you have. You started in post #84 by building two strawmen.

First, this whole idea that I have advocated making laws based on feelings which is a kind of put down implying those like me who might advocate regulating firearms as overly emotional and irrationally scared of firearms and not logical. After that subtle smear, then going right into the German Shepard's teeth and SUV emissions which was the second strawman.

Pretty lame. Nowhere, in any of my posts have I advocated feelings having anything to do with whether we should regulate firearms. I spent many decades around firearms and military weaponry and been in combat. I am not afraid of firearms but I am opposed to untrained, unrestrained people having access to things like explosives and heavy military weapons with little or no regulation not because I feel bad about these weapons but because I know the damage they can do with irresponsible/evil handling. That is knowledge and experience, not a feeling.

and I challenge you to point out where I have

That was easy. Go to this thread; http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=299021 which is one you started awhile back. There are so many of them there that I couldn't list them all but here are a few; Posts # 51, 76, 78, 93, 196. On and on and you added shovels I think at one point to the list. Trying to argue that firearms are not inherently dangerous because they possess no will of their own which is not what inherently dangerous means.

Eventually, on this thread you would have got to that but I remembered our previous debates and preempted it.

As it pertains to the current discussion, no you have not. You've only managed to come up with a completely unrelated dissertation about motorcycle helmets.

I have and it is quite self evident to a thoughtful person that as our society has evolved and grown more complex many actions individuals take, that years ago would have had no impact on others, do so today and therefore make many of our actions subject today to regulation.

those items still make you feel unsafe and so, according to you they should be illegal.

The thread is about firearms. Did I say firearms should be illegal? Are you putting words in my mouth?

By putting words into other people's mouths, as you just have, and then refuting that which they never claimed, which you just did, you are by definition creating a strawman and then knocking him down. TG, I expected better of you.

I am not putting words in your mouth, just exposing your argument with your words. Such strawmen arguments play well with hard core gun enthusiasts but they don't with the voting majority public. There are lots of gun control laws I oppose but I do look at the reality of firearms in that they are weapons, designed to kill and are inherently dangerous and are recognized as such by business, insurance companies and non-gun owning people. I do not try to trivialize that by saying that this recognition is based purely on irrational emotion and that there is no logic or rational thought involved.

Webley, you appear to be pretty smart and debate well, I think you can build a better case opposing gun control than using these tired old strawmen. Of course I am assuming you want to have real change in gun laws and are not just playing to the crowd on this forum. If you wish for those changes I recommend you drop the comparisons of firearms to anything other than what they are; dangerous weapons designed to effectively kill people. If you don't, all your other arguments will fall on deaf ears.

[Shane Tuttle]

Can't help but think I'm being taunted for an encore. Whether or not that's the case, I'll concede that I lied and post again. Don't think it will make a difference since no matter what I state it's either strawman or it gets twisted, but I can't help myself...

Here's one question I'd like to see answered.
Tell me how gunowners benefit from only having 10rd magazines, not being allowed to own autos, can't even own a semi-auto handgun? Your denial that the there's no slippery slope that is not constrained by your participation in the political process is invalid. You think we can vote for supreme court justices?

See my earlier posts on the social contract and that Hobbes dude. I prefer a little less "liberty" (like keeping C4 in my basement) to the law of the jungle where my nutty neighbor stores TNT in his garage.

Well, we did have a pretty smart guy that helped form the country we live in today that stated "Giving up a little liberty in exchange for safety deserves neither". So, is Mr. Franklin giving strawman arguments? Since you won't accept analagies, then I give actual laws set in place. Take the quote I stated above and tell me it's still strawman.

I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it doesn't impact someone else's rights (despite the fact that I and others keep showing you that much of what individuals do DOES effect others)

You didn't prove one thing to support your case. People can misuse/abuse any right/liberty they have that affects others. You want to take liberties from the vast majority that will excercise prudence for the few that MAY abuse it. Placing unneeded laws AUTOMATICALLY take liberties away from the majority while the few that MAY abuse it will still take action. If you can't understand this simple issue, there's nothing else to say except we have to agree to disagree.

Gun are designed to kill people and they are inherently dangerous and to argue otherwise will make you look silly to an objective party. If we are going to win this debate we need to expand our thinking beyond cliche'.

Sometimes the simplest of laws in placed based on statements/beliefs make the most sense compared to having literally thousands of needless laws. The whole "risk assessment" bullcrap would be a moot point if we had simple laws based on my said documents and just enforce them. You really think that America is actually safer because a law abiding citizen can't currently own an automatic firearm? Semi-auto handgun? Handgun at all?

So to be supportive of laws just because the general public made it so "due to risk assessment" and actually think it's valid compared to our beliefs based on the very documents and Founding Fathers' intent really makes me think your idea is the epitimy(sp) of a strawman.

The thread is about firearms. Did I say firearms should be illegal? Are you putting words in my mouth?

You support the ban on automatic firearms, don't you? I would go as far as to say you do support firearms to be illegal.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Can't help but think I'm being taunted for an encore. Whether or not that's the case, I'll concede that I lied and post again.

Not at all. I might challenge you but taunting is not my intent as it is disrespectful. You are not lying either. You have me mixed up with another poster who is on T&T a lot. (hint);)

Take the quote I stated above and tell me it's still strawman.

It is not. However, did you notice I put these "" around liberty in my post. That was I guess an abortive attempt at sarcasm since I think if 'ole Ben were around today he would think folks having unregulated access to modern day military weapons appalling. I think that particular liberty is not protected by the COTUS and so is not legitimate liberty.

You didn't prove one thing to support your case.

What I have done is provide evidence to support my case but you do not accept it which makes this statement:

we have to agree to disagree.

correct.

You really think that America is actually safer because a law abiding citizen can't currently own an automatic firearm? Semi-auto handgun? Handgun at all? ...You support the ban on automatic firearms, don't you?


Law abiding citizens can own all those weapons you mentioned, they are not illegal but they are regulated and I think that is good. But more to the point; I think the idea of any gun, anyone, anywhere and anytime to be ludicrous.

whole "risk assessment" bullcrap would be a moot point if we had simple laws based on my said documents and just enforce them.

Tuttle, what you and Webley aren't getting is risk assesment and other methods of making decisions are how we arrive at conclusions logically and then use to make laws concerning public safety. This is not about feelings or emotions even though they might evoke the process. I am not saying the process cannot be flawed but that is how the legislative process is supposed to work. John Adams wrote some good stuff about this.

Let me state this again for you and Webley, Laws do not prevent anything they are no more than words on a page. They codify legal and/or illegal action. Enforcement, and the threat of it coupled with civic virtue ensure compliance or sanction. Or as the Bible says, "The purpose of the law was to show that we are sinners." Romans 7:7-8

[Shane Tuttle]

Law abiding citizens can own all those weapons you mentioned, they are not illegal but they are regulated and I think that is good. But more to the point; I think the idea of any gun, anyone, anywhere and anytime to be ludicrous.

You are wrong as the day is long. You haven't lived or even checked laws in Cook County Illinois, have you? What about the laws California, Maryland, etc. that ban certain semi-auto handguns? You're completely ignoring the current laws that do in fact infringe on individual rights and liberties. Regulated? Well, if I was one rich bastard I guess I can afford an M4 after going through paying through the nose for a Class III license, fees, etc. But for you to simply give this a pass that it's all but illegal shows that you're not considering reality. Antis love the word "regulate". They regulate the snot out of stuff that basically keeps it out of reach for the law abiding average citizen.

And I do sheepishly agree with any gun anyone issue. There ARE certain laws that should be in place. This includes certain cases of mentally impaired, etc. But this is about as far as I go.

Let me state this again for you and Webley, Laws do not prevent anything they are no more than words on a page. They codify legal and/or illegal action. Enforcement, and the threat of it coupled with civic virtue ensure compliance or sanction. Or as the Bible says, "The purpose of the law was to show that we are sinners." Romans 7:7-8

So? I don't disagree with that. This is a double edged sword. Why in the world do you need to make a law that you're not going to enforce? I never assume lawmakers just whip up a rule on a piece of paper for the fun of it.

[Webleymkv]

TG, I really expected better from you

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I've never said that

Sure you have. You started in post #84 by building two strawmen.

First, this whole idea that I have advocated making laws based on feelings which is a kind of put down implying those like me who might advocate regulating firearms as overly emotional and irrationally scared of firearms and not logical. After that subtle smear, then going right into the German Shepard's teeth and SUV emissions which was the second strawman.

Pretty lame. Nowhere, in any of my posts have I advocated feelings having anything to do with whether we should regulate firearms. I spent many decades around firearms and military weaponry and been in combat. I am not afraid of firearms but I am opposed to untrained, unrestrained people having access to things like explosives and heavy military weapons with little or no regulation not because I feel bad about these weapons but because I know the damage they can do with irresponsible/evil handling. That is knowledge and experience, not a feeling.

In post #48, you stated that your neighbor should not be able to own a rocket launcher or C4 because that infringes upon your right to be safe. I countered that a tank of anhydrous ammonia or a leaking propane cylinder could also represent a significant threat to your safety should theybe misused or simply neglected. Because you did not argue this point, I presume that you do not refute it. However, as you've not advocated making the items I mentioned illegal while maintaining that the items you brought up should be, one must logically conclude that rocket launchers and C4 in the wrong hands make you feel unsafe while propane tanks and anhydrous ammonia do not. I have seen the destruction that intentional misuse or even simple accidents with propane cylinders and anhydrous ammonia can cause and it makes me nervous when I'm around these items. If I said that these items should be illegal or restricted as heavily as C4 and Rocket launchers because they represent a threat to my safety, I would probably be laughed out of the room, even though they really do represent a significant threat to my safety if misused. Your perception of something's potential danger, and the resulting lack of a feeling of safety, in and of itself is not sufficient justification to ban something.

You brought C4 and Rocket Launchers (both non-firearms) into the discussion, I simply used your own example to illustrate my point. Just because you percieve one type of gun to be more dangerous than another does not make sufficient justification to ban it, you have to prove that the ownership of that gun represents a public safety hazard that is significantly greater than the ownership of another. So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to do that.

Also, with regards to your military service, that really has no bearing whatsoever on the discussion at hand. One does not have to serve in the military to be able to understand the possible consequences of misusing firearms nor anything else. This is a simple attempt to argue from authority, but that authority does not impress me with regards to the current discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
and I challenge you to point out where I have

That was easy. Go to this thread; http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=299021 which is one you started awhile back. There are so many of them there that I couldn't list them all but here are a few; Posts # 51, 76, 78, 93, 196. On and on and you added shovels I think at one point to the list. Trying to argue that firearms are not inherently dangerous because they possess no will of their own which is not what inherently dangerous means.


Oh come now, surely you are able to see that nowhere in any of those posts did I say that a car, SUV, canine, or shovel is just as dangerous or more dangerous than a firearm. You've taken my posts completely out of context, and I think we both know that. In the majority of the posts I reference, I am simply using example of other items to demonstrate that a firearm is not the only tool that can be dangerous if misused, nowhere do I state that these other instruments are equally dangerous. Either you can't see the forest for the trees or, more likely, you're trying to use mere illustrative examples as red herrings to draw the discussion away from the inherent weakness of your own argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
As it pertains to the current discussion, no you have not. You've only managed to come up with a completely unrelated dissertation about motorcycle helmets.

I have and it is quite self evident to a thoughtful person that as our society has evolved and grown more complex many actions individuals take, that years ago would have had no impact on others, do so today and therefore make many of our actions subject today to regulation.

Here you partake of three different fallacies all at the same time. First you "beg the question" by simply contradicting me and restating your own claim rather than actually providing any support. Secondly, by saying that it is "self evident to a thoughtful person" you engage in a subtle ad-hominem attack but suggesting that anyone who dones not see it your way must not be thoughtful. Finally, there is an extremely subtle appeal to ignorance within your ad-hominem attack as it is a challeng to me to either find your support for you or prove your claim to be wrong as being unable to do so would suggest that I am not a "thoughtful person."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
those items still make you feel unsafe and so, according to you they should be illegal.

The thread is about firearms. Did I say firearms should be illegal? Are you putting words in my mouth?

Blatantly out of context. The items you mentioned in the passage that I quoted were not firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
By putting words into other people's mouths, as you just have, and then refuting that which they never claimed, which you just did, you are by definition creating a strawman and then knocking him down. TG, I expected better of you.

I am not putting words in your mouth, just exposing your argument with your words. Such strawmen arguments play well with hard core gun enthusiasts but they don't with the voting majority public. There are lots of gun control laws I oppose but I do look at the reality of firearms in that they are weapons, designed to kill and are inherently dangerous and are recognized as such by business, insurance companies and non-gun owning people. I do not try to trivialize that by saying that this recognition is based purely on irrational emotion and that there is no logic or rational thought involved.


You most certainly are. You are attributing statements to me that I never made and have made very clear that the meaning you seem to take issue with and want to refute was not intended in the statement you are so quick to partially quote or take out of context. By attributing something that I never said to me and then refuting it in a devastating way, you are by definition partaking in a strawman argument.

Webley, you appear to be pretty smart and debate well, I think you can build a better case opposing gun control than using these tired old strawmen. Of course I am assuming you want to have real change in gun laws and are not just playing to the crowd on this forum. If you wish for those changes I recommend you drop the comparisons of firearms to anything other than what they are; dangerous weapons designed to effectively kill people. If you don't, all your other arguments will fall on deaf ears.

Likewise, you appear to be quite intelligent: certainly intelligent enough to take the context of a statement into account when interpreting it's meaning and purpose. I think you and I both know that my mention of items other than firearms was meant for nothing more than illustration and that focusing on them as you have is nothing more than a red herring. Point of fact, you introduced non-firearms into this discussion (specifically C4, rocket launchers, and motorcycles) but I agree, let's get back to firearms and leave the sophistry behind. Perhaps you would explain to us exactly how an MP-40 represents a significantly greater public safety hazard than a Kel-Tec Carbine with a 33-round Glock 18 magazine or why it is so much more dangerous for a college student with a valid CCL to carry on campus rather than at Wal-Mart as these are the types of laws that I take issue with.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Webley,

I expect better from you as well. These positions you espouse are ridiculous and I think we have battled these issues before but I will go back to it until Al or somebody closes the thread.

I countered that a tank of anhydrous ammonia or a leaking propane cylinder could also represent a significant threat to your safety should theybe misused or simply neglected. Because you did not argue this point, I presume that you do not refute it.

I didn't bother to refute it because it is silly. There you go again equating firearms with unrelated items like propane gas. At least in TN if you keep storage facilities of anhydrous ammonia (which you have to have a permit to buy) there are indeed rules and regulations about how you must store it. The propane tank example isn't worth a comment.

Just because you percieve one type of gun to be more dangerous than another does not make sufficient justification to ban it, you have to prove that the ownership of that gun represents a public safety hazard that is significantly greater than the ownership of another. So far, neither you nor anyone else has been able to do that.

Well, I guess the NRA which won't pursue repealing the NFA or FOPA '86 has that same feeling, the Military which developed them to kill lots and lots of people and who carefully control them and won't let soldiers use them without fairly extensive training feel the same way. Please!

Neither I nor the government have to prove anything to you Webley. In other threads you have been presented the evidence but you simply won't accept it. The fact is nobody is going to change your mind because it is made up. No problem, I disagree and those weapons are still restricted. I know from another debate we had you still believe the militia still exists. It doesn't, but you are free to believe it if you wish. I say all this because no matter what reason or evidence you are presented with will make no difference and you will simply present another strawman or false analogy argument to counter it.

Either you can't see the forest for the trees or, more likely, you're trying to use mere illustrative examples as red herrings to draw the discussion away from the inherent weakness of your own argument.

Maybe you are the one who can't see the forest for the trees. The only support for nonregulation of these type weapons is a small minority of the gun culture. Same with the militia. Now I know that just because a few believe something doesn't by itself make the position wrong but I really haven't seen any illuminating arguments coming from your camp either. I do see a lot of strawmen and false analogies but the wind of scrutiny blows them over. Have you got anything new to offer?

it is a challeng to me to either find your support for you or prove your claim to be wrong as being unable to do so would suggest that I am not a "thoughtful person."

This isn't debate club. The evidence is clear and what I am challenging you to do is acknowledge what you already know to be true. I provided evidence of lack of helmet use and the costs involved and you ignored it with no comment. It is clear then to me that whatever support I present will also be ignored and so why should I waste my time providing you something you already know to be true?

This is a simple attempt to argue from authority, but that authority does not impress me with regards to the current discussion.

Nor does any evidence that contradicts your opinion impress you either. However, to me it is clear from your arguments that you seem to lack a bit of experience that would probably give you a more complete perspective and so we wouldn't need to explain things like why a firearm is inherently dangerous and a full auto machine gun is more dangerous than a .22 bolt action rifle. The military would have provided a bit of that.

Blatantly out of context. The items you mentioned in the passage that I quoted were not firearms.

and you are still wrong. Read it again. I didn't say illegal but regulated in keeping with the OP.

Likewise, you appear to be quite intelligent: certainly intelligent enough to take the context of a statement into account when interpreting it's meaning and purpose.

And intelligent enough to see strawmen, red herrings and false analogies in others arguments which is why I continue to call you on it.

Perhaps you would explain to us exactly how an MP-40 represents a significantly greater public safety hazard than a Kel-Tec Carbine with a 33-round Glock 18 magazine

and leave the sophistry behind.

I think you are being a bit disingenous here Webley, sophistry is about all I have heard from you on this issue. We have debated this before but feel free to go back and read the threadin L&P...again.

If there is really no danger to the public of civilians possessing all types of military weapons and the logic of that is so crystal clear then why are they not legal today? I guess the rest of us are just too slow to see it.:rolleyes:

As I said before and will repeat. You can do better than this.

[Webleymkv]

TG, I must say I'm disappointed. Each and every point I've made has been clearly and directly stated and then re-clarified multiple times. Rather than directly refute my points, however, you have chosen to engage in ad hominem attacks (though subtle and cleverly disguised), argument from authority, red herrings, strawman arguments, and other such sophistry.

It is becoming clear through both this debate and those we've had in the past regarding the NFA and militia that you have certain a priori beliefs regarding the intent of the founders and the constitution and no evidence that I can provide will sway you (hence my recognition of these beliefs as a priori). A priori beliefs are one thing, I have a few myself, but I am disappointed that you would resort to sophistry rather than engaging in our debate openly and directly.

That being said, this debate is rapidly turning in a direction that I don't wish to follow. Our arguments are resembling rational debate less and less and mud slinging more and more. Because this sort of behavior is against the rules of the forum, and because this is not the type of debate I want to partake in, I will leave this discussion now before it completely leaves the high road and descends irreversably to the low.

[Al Norris]

With that, ladies and gentlemen, this thread has reached its end.