Gun control

[ditchdj]

A lot of people dont understand is that our 2nd Amendment was there to prevent tyranny. It's the idea that a well-armed population will prevent the government from having too much power and taking away everyone's rights. I see nothing wrong with that. I've found that ordinary, "law-abiding" citizens to be a much bigger threat to my well-being and way of life than some group of religious freaks running around with bombs strapped to their wastes. That's what I see the 2nd Amendment for. To me, violence is what censorship is to most people. Yeah it's not right and it's wrong in a normal setting, BUT, when you threaten my well-being in any way, shape, or form, then all bets are off and they're to be embraced (and I'm sure a lot of other people feel that way). I've worked too long and way too hard to build the kind of life I want and have become very protective over it. I just wish most people had that kind of motivation to go after Bin Laden. If you put ME in charge over there right now his body would be providing dinner for the scorpions and sand flies over there.

[Rapscallion]

http://www.leasticoulddo.com/comic/20071211

A far better solution.

Rapscallion

[IDrinkaRum]

Thanks Raps! I almost violated CS's Rule #1 over here!

[ditchdj]

Interesting video from ABC's "20/20" on the myth of gun control reducing violent crime...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ

[BlaqueKatt]

A buddy of mine posted this on another board (dont know if he wrote it himself or got it from somewhere else)...

20 reasons to ban guns..... Flawed anti-self-defense/anti-gun liberal logic

that is actually part of this much longer list by Michael Z Williamson- titled "what you have to believe to believe in gun control"


A few other good ones-

That it's reasonable to require proof of a criminal act before an order of protection can be issued, but reasonable to assume anyone with a gun will commit a criminal act, so they should be subject to prior restraint.

That most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.

That people who own guns out of a fear of crime are paranoid, but people who don't want other people to own guns in case it causes them to commit crimes are rational.

That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don't.

That intelligent people should support gun control because they realize they are too stupid to be trusted with guns.

That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn't really want to shoot you and he'll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he'll shoot you if you don't.

That someone who fails to clear his weapon, fails to point it in a safe direction, pulls the trigger without checking the chamber, and blows his foot off is an example of how even a "trained professional" can be a "victim" of a diabolical gun, but people in the military who clean weapons millions of times a year without getting hurt are "dumb grunts."


That neighbors who carry guns against the occasional lunatic are paranoid, because of the perfectly justifiable fear that every single one of them is waiting to turn into a lunatic.

That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950's and 1960's, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.

That we should ban guns because people have a "right to feel safe," but the right to feel safe by owning firearms for defense is not valid.

That "assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them.

That citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but desk-bound police administrators who work in a building filled with cops do, as do tax auditors, vegetable inspectors, mail inspectors, and meat inspectors.


to the constitution issue:

That there's no risk of the US becoming a police state, Japanese-Americans were not interned in the 40's, blacks were not oppressed and jailed in the 50's, and no students were killed at Kent State.

That when the government promises that they won't confiscate our weapons after we register them, we can believe them, just like the Commanche, the Sioux, the Apache, the Kaw, the Cree, the Blackfoot, the Italians in NYC, the Jews in Germany, the Zulu in South Africa…and the Americans at Lexington and Concord.

That there's no right to own military weapons, which is why the Civilian Marksmanship Program at http://www.odcmp.com exists to sell military weapons to civilians under Congressional authority.

That registration of guns, in violation of the McClure-Volkmer Act, and as declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is somehow still legal.

That the "right of the people peaceably to assemble," the "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "the enumeration herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the states.

That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.

That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.

That private citizens can't have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can't have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.

That we don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, so we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments of that Constitution, and won't thereby become an oppressive government.

That guns are useless against tyranny, because an armed populace of 160 million cannot defeat an army of 2 million mixed in among it.

[radiocerk]

I admit...

Just off the bat, that I just don't like guns. I've known many people who have been shot (not fatally, luckily) and believe that most people who are rabidly attached to their weapons are testosterone-poisoned idiots.
Now that I've said that, I understand that in some places, guns can be useful.

If you live in BFE (extremely rural areas), and the police need a full tank of gas to reach you, and some wild animal is threatening you or your dependents (spouse, children, livestock, whatever), a gun may spare you either emotional distress, financial difficulty, or both. (I hate the "loved ones" term in gun-rights, I feel it is a term designed to pull at the heartstrings and be inflammatory.)

I have had the gun-rights conversation with my SO regularly, as the proud owner of a CCW, he is thrilled that he can take his gun places. I think it's silly. If you can't openly wear a gun somewhere, why should you be able to hide one?

I grew up in an extremely metropolitan area. Guns were not a tool in S. California, they were a problem. The people I knew who had guns for home-defense never needed them. Not because thay had a giant sign in the window "GUN HERE", but because the gun wasnt' the only thing they kept in mind. Decent lighting, a security system, a barking dog, these things are just as likely to deter a robber or other "invader" as a gun. Nobody's going to know about the gun until their inside. And the gun isn't going to help if someone robs your house while you're not home.

As for the common inflammatory argument about the woman and rapist, there are ways to defend yourself against that sort of thing without a gun as well. It is very difficult (I imagine) to rape someone while holding a gun, which means, at some point, every rapist is open to counterattack. I don't understand why anyone would need to carry a gun to keep a level head. The easiest way not to become a victim, is to refuse to be one. And it doesn't require a weapon, just a state of mind.

If you really feel the need to keep a gun in your house, fine. If you really feel the need to go hunting, I'm cool with that, I prefer my bow, but YMMV. But I can't see any logical reason (If you want to collect pretty looking guns, they make replicas that don't fire) for [B][I]anyone[I][B to own a fully automatic weapon. If you really want to know what it's like to fire one, join the military.
With the exception of the store owner/manager, I see no reason for anyone to have a gun in a place of business. And carrying one walking down the street seems the height of testosterone poisoning. Earlier someone made the comment comparing taking away his guns to emasculating him, sounds like testosterone poisoning to me.

And for the complarison of guns to cars, I think guns should be held to the same standards. The government has the VIN of my car on file, and kinows who owns it. I have to make sure they have this information every year, if I sell it to someone else, the government knows who has it now. If it is stolen, I don't report it and it kills someone, I'm certain I'll hear about it. I had to get a permit, and then a license to operate it, and a test before I was given that license. I have to take a physical exam (an eye test) every few years, and if I have any physical reasons that I may not be able to operate my car properly, and I don't tell the government about them, they will take my authorization. I feel that guns should be registered, and you should have to show proper use of one before you can legally use it. Yes, I can own a car without a license, but that is illegal and makes me a criminal. Anyone who does not register their weapons, should similiarly be considered a criminal.

More guns is not the answer to the problem. I do not own a gun, though there is one in the house. I have no desire to own a gun. I also have no desire to carry a cell phone, own a SUV, or have plastic surgery. You can if you want to, but you can't tell me that I should or should want to. America is a country of individuals, and NO ONE has the right to tell anyone that they should [I]want[I] anything.

I have a strong distaste for the nanny state, but that's a rant for another topic. My distaste works both ways though. Don't tell me whether or not I should want to own, carry, or shoot a firearm. The government can (within ever increasing limits) tell me what I can do, I won't stand for anyone telling me what I can think, feel, and want.

[CancelMyService]

I just wish pro gun people (and there's nothing wrong with being into guns) wouldn't rely on scare tactics to make their case. When you have to make lists of all the scary things that can happen if the evil libruls took all the guns away, it gives the impression that it's the only way they can get anyone to agree with them.

It's my same basic issue with anti-abortion and the fervently religious, all they ever seem to offer to prove their sides are scare tactics.

[Boozy]

Question re: Concealed weapons and carrying permits.

If someone is licensed to carry, and they want to eat at a restaurant I own, or shop at my store, do I have the right to refuse them entry as long as they have their gun with them?

[radiocerk]

CCW's

You have to post a notice at your door, but yes, you can refuse service to those carrying weapons. Out where I live now, it's pretty easy to get a CCW, so there are a lot of people who do. So, you do see the signs posted.

[the_std]

I just wish pro gun people (and there's nothing wrong with being into guns) wouldn't rely on scare tactics to make their case.

It's my same basic issue with anti-abortion and the fervently religious, all they ever seem to offer to prove their sides are scare tactics.

I think most rational, logical people wish that no political extremist (and I mean "extremist" in the negative way, not in someone who simply has radical beliefs) would use scare tactics. I know I'd rather have my brain appealed to rather than my herd mentality about, say, the environment, the health care system and gun control.

[CancelMyService]

Of course the difference being that having no health care and poor quality air can kill you, while not having a gun only kills you in the stories of evildoers who want to do you harm. Not that there isn't any risk of becoming a victim of violent crime, but it's a far lesser risk than say, catching a cold that turns onto pneumonia due to not being able to afford a doctor visit.

[the_std]

I know. I was just saying that scare tactics will always be around. That's just how some people do things.

[Zyanya]

My life was once in danger.

I used force to protect myself. The force involved should have been lethal, I certainly intended it to be, but alas, the emergency room doctor was good at his job.

I was not that individual's first victim. Nor was I his last.

I own a gun now. I learned the hard way that non-lethal methods of defending myself are insufficient.

Call it scare tactics if you want. It's a lesson I do not need a refresher course in.

[Seshat]

My father taught me about applying my bony prominences to an attacker's soft tissues. My husband taught me that if I'm ever attacked, I shouldn't hesitate to use my full strength.

Both of them are of the opinion that someone who assaults another person deserves whatever they get - and that since I'm not a black belt or some other sort of specialist in martial matters, I don't have the sheer knowledge and expertise to use non-lethal force and expect to get away.

(If I ever do become a specialist, of course, the equation changes. At that point, I would have the knowledge and skills to use a measured amount of force and escape unharmed. With my disabilities, that's unlikely.)

That said, I'm not intending to carry a gun. Aside from the low likelihood that I'll need it (being in a relatively low-crime country), I trust myself with a gun even less than I do with a car. Part of the disabilities I have. And I dare not use capsicum spray - the by-blow from it is likely to disable me further right when I need to be able to get the hell away. I'm highly susceptible to capsicates.

It sucks.

[Zyanya]

I recommend a stun gun, if that's legal where you are.