The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 22, 2012, 03:50 PM   #101
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
My position may sound nuts to some, but I chose some of those items for specific reasons:

1) Moving vans, fertilizer, diesel fuel -- Timothy McVeigh -- 168 killed, including 19 kids who were in day care that day. (Though I think TM used racing fuel, now that I think about it.)

2) Box cutters -- 9/11 -- Thousands dead.

Between those two, number of firearms used to kill in the incidents: 0.

Frankly, it only sounds nuts if you are unable to articulate the reasoning behind them.
__________________
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  
Old December 22, 2012, 03:51 PM   #102
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
Quote:
When I first read your post, it kinda sounded, perhaps because I read it too quickly, that you don't think anyone should be allowed to sell a gun to a stranger without a background check or an FFL. My apologies if I was mistaken.
That IS what I believe.
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 03:55 PM   #103
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
Quote:
Frankly, it only sounds nuts if you are unable to articulate the reasoning behind them.
I'm not worried about articulating the reasons to gun-right supporters, I'm worried about how we articulate our beliefs to gun-right OPPONENTS, who may have the voting power to take those rights away, especially if we seem like we are nuts.

If you are a car salesman and you are trying to sell a car to a Chinese person that doesn't speak English and doesn't want what you are selling, and you don't even speak Chinese, then you call the Chinese person a jerk for not buying the car... well...
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 03:57 PM   #104
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Karl
That IS what I believe.
Fair enough, but I disagree. There's no reason for the government to meddle in how I dispose of my personal property any more than it already does. It already prohibits me from transferring a firearm to anyone who: (a) lives outside my state, regardless of how well I know their history; or (b) anyone who lives in my state where I have a reasonable belief that the person is somehow prohibited by law from possessing firearms.

Personally, I think it sounds crazy to think that legislative creation of Gun-Free Zones will protect anyone. I don't think it's reasonable to believe that a person who is willing to shoot into a crowd, of any sort, will somehow be deterred on the basis that guns aren't allowed there. All GFZs do is ensure that such a person is shooting fish in a barrel.
__________________
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  
Old December 22, 2012, 04:01 PM   #105
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Karl
I'm not worried about articulating the reasons to gun-right supporters, I'm worried about how we articulate our beliefs to gun-right OPPONENTS, who may have the voting power to take those rights away, especially if we seem like we are nuts.
Then we must work to articulate the reasons that gun control is undesirable, not capitulate simply because the other side refuses to see reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Karl
If you are a car salesman and you are trying to sell a car to a Chinese person that doesn't speak English and doesn't want what you are selling, and you don't even speak Chinese, then you call the Chinese person a jerk for not buying the car... well...
I'm not following you on this one. Care to elaborate?
__________________
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  
Old December 22, 2012, 04:02 PM   #106
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
You can buy a replica black powder revolver. Anyone think the mentally disturbed man in CT couldn't have accomplished the exact same thing with a black powder pistol replica? No 4473 or NICS check for those. And they're worried about a gun show loophole. I guess this is what happens when people too scared of guns to know anything about them legislate gun control.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 04:02 PM   #107
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Karl
That argument is falling on completely deaf ears on the left. It might mean something to you, and to me, but it means absolutely nothing to them.
So I should quit saying it, even if it's true?
__________________
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  
Old December 22, 2012, 07:38 PM   #108
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Quick Karl confuses and conflates "effective communication" with "appeasement."

As far as thinking background checks should be required, because that buyer could be the next David Berkowitz... Should we require background checks for car and van sales? Most kidnappings, and many sexual assaults, involve vehicles. Should we require a license to buy rope or duct tape?

Effective communication does not require stupid concessions, nor does it require kissing of butts.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 08:57 PM   #109
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
Effective communication requires not being stupid, especially when you are confronting a majority that is probably going to vote your rights away...
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 09:03 PM   #110
8MM Mauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2011
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 546
A lot of what's been mentioned/argued here is part of my point. We need to have this conversation... But nobody wants to hear it. I've been shocked to learn over the last week or so that some people actually fear guns, as in, the inanamite object itself... Like its going to jump off someone's hip and start killing people on its own. People don't want to talk about it, they are scared of the guns and scared of be responsible for their own fate.
8MM Mauser is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 09:08 PM   #111
8MM Mauser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 16, 2011
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 546
Quote:
Speak for yourself 8mm. It won't be 20 bucks for me. It'll be 20-30 bucks, and 10% of the value of the firearm. That used Dan Wesson for 3K? Just became close to 3500.
Wow! My car doesn't cost that much! I say this is jest friend, but that's a problem I hope to have some day. Anything Dan Weson is about as far out of my reach as going to the moon or marrying Megan Fox (difference in culture, income and relative physical "characteristics" compounded by the fact that I'm already married!) so color me green.
8MM Mauser is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 09:25 PM   #112
Kevin Rohrer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2010
Location: Medina, Ohio
Posts: 509
The only thing that comes to mind for me that I *might* support would be a requirement to keep all weapons located in my home locked in a safe, except for those in my immediate possession (i.e. carrying it, cleaning it, etc).

I do that now.
__________________
Member: Orange Gunsite Family, NRA--Life, Varmint Hunters' Assn., ARTCA, American Legion, & South Cuyahoga Sportsmen's Assn.

"Gunnery, gunnery, gunnery...all else is twaddle!" --Admiral Sir John Fisher, RN
Kevin Rohrer is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 09:49 PM   #113
treg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 26, 2006
Posts: 1,031
Quote:
The only thing that comes to mind for me that I *might* support would be a requirement to keep all weapons located in my home locked in a safe, except for those in my immediate possession
Your home is a safe - lock the doors. What the .gov requires one to do in their own home is a slippery slope. (not saying that locking your guns up is not a good idea on several levels)

I would support laws that greatly increase punishment / mandatory sentencing for theft of a firearm. Put the burden on the BG, not the GG. I feel this is something the NRA should be pushing.

Also, along the lines of our "super drunk" law here in MI, we could have a "super B&E" law that doubles / greatly increases the punishment for B&E on a house containing a firearm.
__________________
"Courage is being scared to death and saddling up anyway." - John Wayne

.44 Special: For those who get it, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation is possible.
treg is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 09:50 PM   #114
Ghost1958
Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2012
Posts: 86
To quote sombody I cant remember now "If you give a mouse a cookie he will want a glass of milk"
Im new to this forum. And nothing personal meant toward anyone but Im astounded at the number of posts that lean toward " finding a middle ground" with the anti gun crowd.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. 2a exists, has already been trampled to death trying to find middle ground as we backed up and accepted this little restriction and that little restriction. NO restriction is what 2a meant, A God given right to keep and bear arms and to self defense exits.
One cannot reason with or educate people that have one agenda that they have spoken many times. No guns in private hands any place any time.
Keep trying to appease, reason with, accept this to hold onto that and eventually if you keep a gun you will be a criminal because they will if allowed ban every gun from private citizens. I suppose then I will be changed from a law abiding citizen to a felon because I will NOT turn over my firearms to a government that by its own act to take my firearms over stepped its authority.
Background checks were and are in place only to track guns and who owns them, under the cover of some safety net to keep idiots from getting guns.
Criminals or planned criminals will get a gun back ground check or not. End of story.
As I said Im new here not to guns, or the antis agenda to take them. What I just said may not make me popular here. If so Im sorry but truth is truth.
Give an inch and we lose a mile. Worry about trying to sway the opinion of folks that cannot be swayed because they know they are wrong to begin with is a waste of time and only makes us look weak and willing to accept whatever stupidity the antis wish to inflict.
Ghost1958 is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 09:52 PM   #115
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
Quote:
Wow! My car doesn't cost that much! I say this is jest friend, but that's a problem I hope to have some day.
Me too. I don't have the problem. Just making sure that if I ever do get to have that problem, I don't actually... you know... have that problem. Keeping an eye on the principle of the thing.
JimDandy is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 10:20 PM   #116
dspieler
Member
 
Join Date: October 18, 2012
Posts: 25
Here is what I believe, and I think reasonable people may disagree, but then in a democracy, we have the opportunity to argue and advocate our positions and see what wins out.

Guns are designed to punch holes in things. In some cases, animals in a legal and regulated hunt, sometimes in people in lawful self defense, and sometimes in unlawful punching of holes in either animals or people.

This is an enormous responsibility. In fact, I think this is a larger responsibility than operating a motor vehicle. However, I also think that laws are not there to protect people from their own bad decisions. If you drive (car/truck/atv) on your own property, and endanger yourself, then you bear the brunt of the cost, and the government can't say boo about it.

On the other hand, if you carry a weapon in public, concealed or open, same as if you drive a vehicle on a public road, you are assuming responsibility not only for your own safety, but for the safety of others around you. I want to know that you understand, for example, that the FMJ round you are carrying may not only go through the person you are in an altercation with, but also into the person standing behind him/her. Moreover, I want you to understand that you are not a sworn law enforcement officer, and that your ability to use your weapon is limited to specific legal guidelines, and not there if you feel your honor, but not your safety is threatened.

I live in a shall issue state, and I needed to demonstrate absolutely no minimal competency with my firearm to be allowed to carry. I think this is a dereliction of the responsibility of the government and given that this was passed with the support of pro-gun advocates, I also think this is a dereliction of our collective responsibility for responsible gun ownership.

To carry is to assume enormous responsibility and I think we, collectively, should step up to the plate and say, yep, there are some minimums, beyond not having been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, that we want our representatives to meet.
dspieler is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 10:24 PM   #117
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
Quote:
Here is what I believe, and I think reasonable people may disagree, but then in a democracy, we have the opportunity to argue and advocate our positions and see what wins out.

Guns are designed to punch holes in things. In some cases, animals in a legal and regulated hunt, sometimes in people in lawful self defense, and sometimes in unlawful punching of holes in either animals or people.

This is an enormous responsibility. In fact, I think this is a larger responsibility than operating a motor vehicle. However, I also think that laws are not there to protect people from their own bad decisions. If you drive (car/truck/atv) on your own property, and endanger yourself, then you bear the brunt of the cost, and the government can't say boo about it.

On the other hand, if you carry a weapon in public, concealed or open, same as if you drive a vehicle on a public road, you are assuming responsibility not only for your own safety, but for the safety of others around you. I want to know that you understand, for example, that the FMJ round you are carrying may not only go through the person you are in an altercation with, but also into the person standing behind him/her. Moreover, I want you to understand that you are not a sworn law enforcement officer, and that your ability to use your weapon is limited to specific legal guidelines, and not there if you feel your honor, but not your safety is threatened.

I live in a shall issue state, and I needed to demonstrate absolutely no minimal competency with my firearm to be allowed to carry. I think this is a dereliction of the responsibility of the government and given that this was passed with the support of pro-gun advocates, I also think this is a dereliction of our collective responsibility for responsible gun ownership.

To carry is to assume enormous responsibility and I think we, collectively, should step up to the plate and say, yep, there are some minimums, beyond not having been convicted of a felony or domestic violence, that we want our representatives to meet.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 10:26 PM   #118
ohen cepel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 1999
Location: Where they send me
Posts: 1,013
To answer the original question;
NO, I would not support any "reasonable" gun control. When I was younger I fell for that story from the left. However, they will not stop till they are all gone, they have said so.

To give them an inch and not recognize what they have said is crazy. They will not be happy with "reasonable". They will keep coming and pushing till we are regulated to death or totally disarmed.
__________________
He who dares wins.

NRA Life Benefactor Member
ohen cepel is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 10:34 PM   #119
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,215
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.

We've put up with way too much infringement already.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 10:42 PM   #120
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
I wonder what "well regulated" meant...
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 10:43 PM   #121
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,215
It meant functional.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 10:58 PM   #122
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
That has been covered multiple times - in the parlance of the 1780's, well regulated meant functioning properly, not controlled by the state. Quick Karl may not like it, but that has been the conclusion of historical scholars and the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, dspieler, anybody who carries in public already is held accountable for what he does. Whether he realizes that or not, it is true.

The problem with mandating training, is that anti-gun governments could simply create onerous training requirements. For example, see Chicago's initial responses to the striking of their gun ban - a firearm purchase applicant would be required to get training and certification, but Chicago would not allow training ranges to open in the city.

In some instances, people don't have money for a class. In some, they can't get transportation. In some, they lack the spare time.

Please note that ALL those arguments were used in multiple states this last election cycle, and by the US Department of Justice, to fight against movements to require photo ID's and proof of US citizenships for voters...
MLeake is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 11:05 PM   #123
Quick Karl
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2008
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 36
Well – adverb - bet•ter \ˈbe-tər\ best \ˈbest\
CORE MEANING: a grammatical word indicating that something is satisfactory or is performed in a satisfactory way. Ethically or properly. Skillfully or expertly. Justly and appropriately.

Regulated (regulate) – transitive verb
Control Something. Adjust or select output. Control something by rules or laws.

Hey, I'm just using a dictonary...
Quick Karl is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 11:08 PM   #124
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Yes, you are using a modern dictionary, which lacks the context of the time in which the phrase was written.

I guess you missed the Supreme Court decision that 2A is an individual right?

You probably also don't realize that the state militia argument was a fairly recent (within the last 100 years) phenomenon. The Second Amendment had been assumed to apply to individual rights until then. The state militia argument didn't gain any traction until around the same time that Congress started its trend of ceding more and more powers to the Executive.
MLeake is offline  
Old December 22, 2012, 11:22 PM   #125
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,626
Quote:
I live in a shall issue state, and I needed to demonstrate absolutely no minimal competency with my firearm to be allowed to carry.
I live in such a state as well. The suggestion has been made that the state mandate training for a carry permit, but nothing has come of it.

While the idea seems appealing, I've yet to see any evidence that there are higher occurrences of accidents with firearms than there are in states with mandated training.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14202 seconds with 7 queries