|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 26, 2012, 05:48 PM | #101 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
"I dispute your facts, particularly the 2/3 figure. Let's see your proof."
Not here to argue, will take all the help we can get. All scientific polls show the same results. Here is Pew Research: Protect the right Control gun (VOL.) to own guns ownership Code:
Yes No Unk Ref # Republican 70 26 4 926 Democrat 30 67 3 1116 Independent 46 50 4 1328 PARTY WITH LEANERS Rep/Lean Rep 67 29 4 1476 Dem/Lean Dem 31 66 3 1689 PARTY AND IDEOLOGY Conservative Republican 75 21 4 678 Mod/Lib Republican 57 37 6 229 Mod/Cons Democrat 32 63 4 625 Liberal Democrat 25 74 1 452 Last edited by Al Norris; July 26, 2012 at 10:01 PM. Reason: readibility |
July 26, 2012, 06:01 PM | #102 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
Quote:
Quote:
I am not, by the way, a proponent of waiting periods or background checks for ammo purchases, or any of the other restrictions being discussed. I am simply saying that these things are not violations of our rights and should not be treated as though they are. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Infringe: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another (Merriam-Webster http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe ) When the 2nd ammendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it means that the rights must not be taken away. It does not mean that the government can't pass laws that make it take a few extra days to get the guns which we have a right to own. It simply means that the government must allow us to own them if that is our choice. Waiting periods and background checks don't stop the legal purchase of guns, therefore they are not, by definition, an infringement.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
|||||
July 26, 2012, 06:07 PM | #103 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
Guns are of course not the end of all crime, but absence of guns is the guarantee that the weak, old and otherwise not as fit make great targets since you have a virtual guarantee that in these places the law abiding citizens do not have guns... No different than pretending the wolf won’t eat your sheep because you now carry a baseball bat instead of a gun... Critical thinking skills are forever lacking in gun control advocates or they are ideologues with little concern for reality. Emotional pleas sell gun control, few if any facts back gun control...
__________________
Molon Labe |
|
July 26, 2012, 06:11 PM | #104 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
||
July 26, 2012, 06:19 PM | #105 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 400
|
BigMikey76:
Stealing is a crime. Gun ownership is not. Comparing laws against stealing to anything that impedes my ability to buy a gun or ammunition for it is absurd. I don't have a God given right to take what isn't mine. I do however have an unalienable right to own guns. |
July 26, 2012, 06:32 PM | #106 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
Quote:
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
|
July 26, 2012, 06:50 PM | #107 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
I guess it is pretty easy to see why we as a society have a difficult time with this issue. For instance we as gun owners have spent over 100 posts debating this topic. We can’t even seem to reach a consensus on whether the President supports more gun control or not.
Personally I prefer to err on the side of personal freedom and I just do not believe that our current systems need changing. Obviously this debate has been motivated by a very tragic incident, but I doubt any of the proposals being discussed would have prevented it. One thing that probably needs to be discussed is our current mental health system and how we balance the issue of personal privacy and potential public safety.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
July 26, 2012, 06:51 PM | #108 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
|
This changes nothing obama is still not interested in legislating gun control
Lots of US forces carry AK47 and 74s because they are superior to US rifles/help us blend in/use the most common ammo in the areas we are waging war. I know this from personal experience. Other then an m60 we used russian rifles the majority of the time. So saying obama does not know what our forces is using is ludicrous. He is still our president for another few months have some respect. No obamas base is not anti gun. Anti gunners are anti gunners and come from all political ideology Romney is still the only candidate to sign into law an assault weapons ban. |
July 26, 2012, 06:58 PM | #109 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
Quote:
As to the concept that gun ownership is a "God given right," I think there is some room for arguement there, but that is probably a topic for another time.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
|
July 26, 2012, 07:03 PM | #110 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 30, 2010
Location: Chicago 'Burbs
Posts: 543
|
Mr Obama, must have missed the cspan coverage of the congressional testamony following the la riots. The Korean convince store owner who defended his shop from looters, buy standing guard on his roof with his AK47!!!!
Sounds like a perfectly legitimate reason to own one. Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2 |
July 26, 2012, 07:09 PM | #111 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Is it too obvious to point out that none of the mass shooters of which I am aware committed the murders within 3 days of purchasing the gun?
Also, when someone's brain goes dysfunctional to the point that killing a room full of innocent people seems like their best option, does anyone really believe that waiting 3 days is going to change their minds? The problem here is the people committing the atrocity. The people. Not the chosen object. Imagine, if the nut who shot Gabby Giffords had chosen a suicide vest instead of a handgun. How many would be dead? What if the Aurora shooter had decided to use nerve gas or other poison? How many would be dead? What is 3 days going to help?
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 26, 2012, 07:27 PM | #112 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
Quote:
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman |
|
July 26, 2012, 07:39 PM | #113 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Quote:
Sorry I met transgress not trespass Quote:
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
||
July 26, 2012, 07:48 PM | #114 | |||||||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
I can say that I am not aware of any spree killer who bought his firearm within 5 days of the shooting. I can say that it didn't prevent any of the 9 school shootings from 1995-1998 (though a principal with a .45 in his car did bring one of them to an early end). On the other hand, I can point to Wisconsin woman Bonnie Elmasri. She had a restraining order against her husband and tried to purchase a firearm. Wisconsin had a 48-hour waiting period at the time. Her and her two children were dead within 24 hours, so she never got her gun. During the Los Angeles riots, citizens also tried to buy guns but were foiled by the 15-day waiting period. In Charlotte, NC, Catherine Latta face a situation similar to Ms. Elmasri, after being robbed and assaulted by an ex-boyfriend several times, she attempted to buy a handgun - at the time North Carolina required police permission as our friend pgdion advocated, she was told the wait was two to four weeks. Ms. Latta chose to purchase a handgun illegally, which came in handy five HOURS later when her boyfriend attacked her outside her house. (See www.afn.org/~afn01182/waiting.html for more examples of people dead due to waiting periods on firearms) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
July 26, 2012, 08:02 PM | #115 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Bellevue, NE
Posts: 981
|
Kraigwy and Bartholomew Roberts:
I guess we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on a number of topics. This is the kind of argument where no one ever wins, and opinions are very rarely changed, and if I don't put the computer away soon, my wife is going to infringe on my right to a lump-free head. I have enjoyed the argument thoroughly, though, and I am sure there will be opportunity to take up this or another argument in the future.
__________________
Some people are like Slinkies - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs. |
July 26, 2012, 08:05 PM | #116 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
If pointing out that a number of law-abiding citizens have been harmed by a waiting period while no known mass shooter has committed the crime within any potential waiting period doesn't end the question, I don't know what would.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 26, 2012, 09:20 PM | #117 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 4,556
|
^^^
This. As I said in my earlier post, those in favor of further restrictions of our constitutional, 2nd Amendment rights ignore the facts that do not support their position, and cannot offer any that do... I got carpal tunnel in the days following the G. Zimmerman tragedy trying to convince the ignorant anti-gun nuts calling FL the "Wild West" and "shoot first, ask questions later" state, that since becoming a "shall issue" state, Florida's violent crime and murder rate has declined by OVER 50%.... Then they counter with "justifiable homicides" having increased... Duh. Criminals getting theirs... Can't fix stupid. |
July 26, 2012, 09:22 PM | #118 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Here's the thing. We're actually better off than we were four years ago when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. A lot better. Can the President take credit? No, but he can bring it up in debates. Consider this: Quote:
Don't get me wrong: I know he'd love to institute gun control, but he also knows that support in Congress is scant at best, and that the proposal would be disastrous.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
July 26, 2012, 09:58 PM | #119 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
Regardless of the type of gun, the real issues is that there are not enough personal freedoms, that if taken from the individual, would have made a difference in this recent tragedy or any other. Complete enslavement of a people does not remove the violent act of a violent person. It just creates slaves. I chose citizenship over serfdom. This is what the Founding Fathers spoke to with the Second Amendment.
|
July 26, 2012, 11:12 PM | #120 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 21, 2008
Location: new zealand
Posts: 856
|
I find it quite concerning how stupid political types can be.
Anyone who thinks that gun control will effect criminals is not living on this planet, it only effects law abiding citizens. In the UK they made it so no one is allowed to own a pistol or a semi automatic weapon, yet every day police in London are finding those sorts of weapons in the hands or criminals. |
July 27, 2012, 12:10 AM | #121 |
Junior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2010
Posts: 11
|
Let me say that I DO have a God-given right to protect my family and myself. And if gun ownership is a part of that, which it most certainly IS, then I have a God-given right to own a gun. Which may not be infringed, as stated in the section of the U.S. Constitution which legally PROTECTS my God-given rights.
__________________
A constitution merely prolongs the pretense that a political government can be limited by laws that it will interpret. Eventually, every constitutional government will embrace Lenin's ruling formula -- "Power without limit, resting directly on force.” Then it is time to reset. |
July 27, 2012, 01:17 AM | #122 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
With regard to BigMikey76, Bartholomew Roberts already beat me to the general concept, but anyway...
BigMikey said: Quote:
My own would have been automobiles. The argument BigMikey put forward was akin to saying that since driving drunk is a crime, then requiring breathalyzer controlled ignitions on all cars would be reasonable since it would prevent crime. Or, branching a different way, saying that since drunk drivers kill a lot of people while driving fast, we should ban Ferraris - they are very fast. Never mind that a drunk in a Yugo will kill you equally dead, and that there are very few Ferraris in the first place. M |
|
July 27, 2012, 01:19 AM | #123 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
With regard to BlueTrain post #55:
Yes, I know the NG was referred to as the militia at one point. However, at the time the Constitution was written, the militias were not state-funded, nor state-equipped. In some cases, they were barely even trained. Citizens were expected to equip themselves with their own firearms, powder, and shot. So the current analogy of the 18th century militia being the equivalent of the modern National Guard is off-base. |
July 27, 2012, 01:25 AM | #124 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
The fact is the Bill of Rights is a document agreed upon and used to structure a set of social values within particular society. It was written by men for Man, within the USA. Quote:
You spoke of societies and their lack of guns and what happens there. You then citied how the UK has high crime in its cities. That makes a clear association which I feel is flawed, hence my response. Mentioning crime rates is pointless unless the places being compared are identical or nearly so in every other way leaving gun ownership as the only sizeable variable. Guns are clearly not a deterrent to criminals prior to their being faced with one. Some societies have no guns yet very low crime. Others have them, yet crime is rife. The only connection between those two social metrics is on the possible outcomes of a percentage of those crimes. The gun may keep you alive, or may let you hold on to your wallet. Quote:
Colorado sales are up 43%, despite the likely repeat of that atrocity being very, very small. Now, I know that we've debated points before, BGutzman, and that it got me in trouble (I spent 3 hours posting and hadn't hoovered as I'd promised!!), but I'd like to reiterate that I don't think we have hugely different views, on the whole. I don't like the extent of the UK's gun policies, I enjoy shooting and I'd rather have my guns than not. Here, I only dispute some of the perceived assertions in that post...
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
|||
July 27, 2012, 05:56 AM | #125 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
If the original definition of the militia as used in the second amendment is obsolete, what does that mean? That you have to run around and find a new meaning? Which seems to have happened.
The bill of rights is god given? Are they engraved copper plates somewhere or chiseled in stone, as handed down on the cloud covered mountain. Really, you have to come up with something better than that. That is, unless the god was Zeus.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|