View Single Post
Old November 2, 2012, 04:37 PM   #74
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,044
SS215, first of all, here's hoping that you get power back soon.

Second, I'm going to attempt to respond to the post quoted below. I know that you're growing tired of "defending yourself" from other posters, but you asked the questions, so here are my answers:

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . .Speaking with honesty, Ive heard the argument on the other side of the table which is basically this: "why do american citizens need to own Assault weapons, they belong in the military, etc". . . . .
First, the first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution have never been called the Bill of Needs.

Second, just because an argument could be made that one individual does not need a particular right at a particular time does not mean that we, as a society, do not need to protect that right. Take the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. I have never needed to assert that right on my own behalf in defense of a criminal prosecution against me. Nonetheless, we (our society) needs to protect that right. Why? Because, in its absence, the government could simply send police officers rummaging through houses with neither warrants nor probable cause, looking for evidence of crimes, then convict the owners based on what was found. In fact, the police could just go house-to-house doing warrantless searches.

Same with the Fifth Amendment. I've never personally needed to exercise mine. Nonetheless, a prohibition on torturing confessions out of detainees, perhaps folks who were detained as a result of the warrantless searches mentioned above, is something that we as a society need to have in place. Yes, it winds up protecting some of the guilty from being convicted for their crimes. It also protects the innocent from being coerced into offering testimony against themselves.

With respect to the Second Amendment, for a variety of reasons, I personally need that right. On top of that, I need (& we need) for citizens (generally) to have that right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . . "Why do NRA supporters who seem to back up law enforcement allow support these guns, which are capable of mowing down cops and innocent bystanders, etc?" . . . .
This argument kind of confuses the issues. Yes, lots of NRA members support cops. I am an NRA member, and generally support law-and-order type stuff. I also support my own right to defend myself and my family. I also support my right, and the right of others, to own cars. Cars are capable of mowing down cops and innocent bystanders, too, are they not? I support guns, and I support cars. I do not support mowing down cops and innocent bystanders with either one of them. The argument above confuses "supporting gun ownership" with "supporting shooting cops."

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . . A lot of folks feel that too many AW's end up in the hands of gangs via straw purchasing and crime. Now, Johnny Q. Crip has armed himself with firearms/ammunition that could pierce most police and military armor, etc. . . .
If Johnny Q. Crip did that through a straw purchase, it was done illegally. He was willing to ignore federal felony statutes to arm himself. If we then institute a ban on (for example) AR or AK style weapons, should we believe that he will obey those statutes?

As for the "firearms/ammunition" that could pierce most police and military armor, the reality of AWBs (IMHO) is that they amount to "Scary Gun Bans." Very few of the banned features had any effect on functionality. It was a matter of pistol grips and folding stocks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . .But is there a single intelligent response to the contrary? . . . .
SS215, perhaps I should just apologize for this one on the front end, 'cuz it's going to sound snarky.

If the anti-gun crowd wants an intelligent response, they need to ask an intelligent question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . .I just feel that sometimes we have to step outside of our safety "gun zone" and place yourselves in citizens' shoes who either CANNOT own and carry firearms, or simply dont believe in guns and are afraid of them. . . . .
An interesting perspective. I've assessed their arguments and found them lacking. What exactly is the next step that I should take to "put myself in their shoes," and why should I do it?

Gun control has gone on for about the last 80 years. In those places where guns are under the strictest control, does it appear that it (gun control) has worked? Has gun control actually reduced crime in NY, Chicago, Washington, D.C.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteel215
. . . . Would some standardized general weapons training/marketing videos via NRA help to ease some people's anxiety around guns, and promote responsible ownership/NRA support to those who are otherwise afraid? . . . .
I'm not sure about the "standardized general weapons training" would, but I do think some marketing videos or something like PSAs from the NRA might help. The probem is getting mainstream media to run them. As it stands, you'd likely only see NRA videos on things like "The Hunter's Channel," where they'd be preaching to the choir.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04430 seconds with 7 queries