Gun control

[rahmota]

Ah yeah Godwin's law. About that. Rememebr hwo a while back i said there are certain big red buttons that will set my temper off? Well sarah brady and the handgun control inc nutjobs are certainly one of them. I have a bit of history with some of them considering my pro-firearms stance.

I went to a gun show in dayton and some of them where there protesting firearms and getting rather disturbingly unpleasant about it. basically take all the stuff you heard about calling soldier's comign back from nam baby killers and all sorts of stuff and then up it a degree and thats what these protesters where doing. Also i hav edone speciall research back in college as I had a professor for a required class that took umbrage of my NRA membership as she was a member of the HCI and we had a few go rounds before the board of regents before she and i agreed to call a truce and just let me test of the class so both of us didnt have to be around each other ever again. So mentioning them gets my blood up a bit quick.

Sarah brady is a vindictive bitter hag who uses people's fear and ignorance as a weapon to try and subvert and pervert the protections of the constitution. You are right unamerican activities is somethign that gets bandied about quite frequently if you are not in favor of whatever the current political fear of the week is. And mccarthy may have been almost a half century back but that just means too many people may have forgotten that in the interests of safety and protection people are willing to trade off too much freedom and personal responsibility. You are right though she is more of a fascist than a nazi.

As for the POV issues you are probably correct. you and I are products of our respective lives. I grew up in one country with one set of choices and experiences and you grew up in another and the end result is the people we are. you are welcome as you have made a few interesting points. You are right that my views on firearms safety and all will not change anytime soon (probably three days after 'm dead but not until) and thats just me.

Cancel: Well Thats a first I didnt think I was a member fo the right wing, or left wing. Or any wing. I am me I represnt the views and opinions of me, myself and I only. I have a deep seated personal hatred of sarah brady, the group of ignorant fearful hate mongers she leads and howshe is takign a personal tragedy and turning it into some kind of vindictive crusade of oppression and evil to destroy the constitution and the rights and freedoms that where guarenteed to american citizens.

Which the militia refers to. WE THE PEOPLE are the militia. Its free citizens. I am not against reasonbale controls. I mena after all we can't shout fire in a crowded theator without getting in trouble. What I am opposed to is the blanket demonification of firearms and those who collect or use them. What i am opposed to is automatically saying that this type of firearm is automatically only goign to be used in a crime so it must not be allowed to be owned. That someone who doesnt want the government to keep a list of who owns firearms is just a paranoid idiot. Among a lot of other things. there are already laws against certain actions we do NOT need laws against just a certain item or type of people just because they have a fondness for things that go boom.

In the end analasys of thigns a firearm is just a tool. A highly specialized tool but a tool none the less. it is the person using that tool who decides to help or harm.

And as for the second amendment and how it ties into all of the other amendments in the bill of rights its a very complex issue. A well armed populace is not only a way of defending the country against enemies but as had been just shown a way of defending the populace against an oppressive government. A fourth check and balance as it where. Any government who disarms its population is able to trod all over them with jackboots with no problems whatsoever. Dont think it could happen here? Would be wonderful if it where true but it could happen anywhere citizens give up their personal liberty and freedom for a sense of security and safety.

Can you imagine the carnage if Virginia Tech was full of terrified students with firearms

Ummm no. Not really. Most of the peopel I know who own and use firearms are responsible and have taken the appropriate measures mentally to prepare themselves to use said firearm in a reasonable and responsible manner. So one student is all it would have taken and you could have cut the death rate by half to almost none.

Basically, if you want to own guns, fine. Acting like anyone who wants to put reasonable limits on dangerous, lethal devices is some sort of terrorist makes you sound exactly like someone who shouldn't be around lots of guns. I'm speaking in a general sense BTW, don't want to give the impression I'm singling anyone out in this thread.

Sure no problem. considering how I've been the msot vocal about firearms ownership on here I'll understand you're not referring to me. There are reasonable limits yes. But we need to put limits on those limits before they start becoming unreasonable and offensive. And a firearm is only as dangerous and lethal as the person holding it. A firearm cannot be dangerous or lethal if the person holding it does not desire it to be so.

[Seshat]

Thank you, rahmota, for mentioning your encounters with the extremists. It does clarify some of your comments. Thank you also for accepting the cultural differences between you and I.

As for 'There are reasonable limits yes. But we need to put limits on those limits before they start becoming unreasonable and offensive.' - I agree. I think our main differences are where the limits, and the limits on those limits, should be.

As you can see in the privacy thread, I agree with a need to keep government honest and under control of the people. Where I am, I believe there's a rather low risk of the government being -that- out of control that a citizen's militia will be desperately needed.

Locally, I think that the risk of gun misuse should they not be controlled is significantly higher than the risk of a citizen militia being necessary. Especially in the hands of urban people who don't have the 'gun culture' that rural people develop. And no, I don't think gun safety courses in schools will produce that culture - that's something that's developed through years of watching adult family and friends handling guns on a regular basis.

This is my guess as to some of the cultural differences that cause us to have such different attitudes, anyway.

[rahmota]

You're welcome seshat. Yeah I've lived and experienced quite a bit so I know that you're not going to make everyone happy all the time and that not everyone's gonna agree with you. So *shrug* thats life.

I'll agree the biggest difference is where you and I draw the line on what is reasonable. That seems to be a common problem with many people on this and other issues.

As for the government I'm goign to go on a limb here and say that since America was founded on revolution, on a distrust of big government, our culture will always have that at some point in the back of its collective mind. Which leads to the well the government isnt out for me or to help me so I'm on my own.

And yeah the culture has changed significantly that high school education would not be all that would be required but it would be a definate start. Its just a sign of how far thigns have changed that you used to be able to mail order firearms and firearms violence was never as bad as it is today when to be a legal firearms owner in many parts of the country you have to jump throuhg two dozen hoops and procedures. It makes me think that there is somethign a bit more wrong than just the ease or availability of firearms. more like the value people place on things like life, liberty and fraternity.

As for us personally. Probably something to do with that too. Oh well. Vive le differenace!

[CancelMyService]

The thing about guns is that they pretty much have one primary purpose: injuring and/or killing things. It's not like a car, which has the capability of killing but has other primary uses, a gun really only has one possible use. Now that's not to say that you'll never need to use a gun, but to act like a gun is some sort of benevolent device seems kind of silly.

I also don't get the argument that guns are needed to keep the government at bay. If shit were to ever really go down, you think even the most well armed gun owner would stand a chance against the US military? There's a lot of reasonable defenses pro gun people can make, and this never strikes me as one of them.

[rahmota]

Cancel: saying that firearm is just a benign lump of metal and plastic does not seem silly to me or millions of other firearms owners. The fiream cannot jump up and load and cock itself for you. It cannot make you pull the trigger or shoot something or someone unless you want to do so. It has no mind, no soul, no will, no desires, no hatreds, no emotions whatsoever. It is an inanimate device. Yes a limited useage tool but a tool none the less. It can be used for sport, hunting, or defense as well as offense. But only based on what the wielder of said firearm chooses to do with it. its not the firearm that is the fault here it is the person using it. Something a lot of people either ignore or choose to forget. They would rather demonize the tool or the item rather than face facts that a person has failed to retain their sense of honor, responsibility and control.

Now as for the second: Assuming the absolute worst case scenario where we get a president who doesnt care about the constitution, who has managed to get a charisma cult going and has created or manouvered things to declare an illegal martial law and basically pull a palpatine on us. The US military will probably have its own issues going on with people splitting onto both sides, chain of command issues and generally all the bad thigns that happen during a civil war. So using them to suppress the population will be a bit problematic. What will be left will be local police forces and they will not be able to be utilized either due to their own issuess with people choosing sides.

What will be left? We the People, citizens who are the militia to form and defend themselves, their families and each other until the constitutional crisis has been resolved. the government would not be able to use the full might of the military on general citizens, and even if they did there would be ways of dealing with that. look at how effective the insurgents in Iraq are at holding the US military at bay. Believe it or not the more technologically advanced the military the harder it is for them to deal with a guerilla force. all the US military controls in Iraq is crtain safe zones outside those zones its wilderness. And this is from my cousin who is in country right as we speak.

In a less worst case scenario a well armed populace is useful when the federal government fails in its duty to provide protection to the citizens. Take NO after katrina. There are reports of citizens who saved people's lives, who saved property by banding together and providing their own police force after the governmental forces abandoned the city. Not lawless vigilantes mind you but law abiding citizens who did not want to see their homes, and ther neighbors threatened by roving bands of hoodlums.

I could go on and on about how useful the ciizen's miliia is in dealing with the failings of a federal government and how a well armed person is a citzen an unarmed one iis a subject and all but I dont think it will do much good.

[Greenday]

While it's admirable to see people doing that kind of stuff rahmota, the problem is we are seeing more and more school shootings. I mean, how the hell are these kids getting these weapons? I mean, some woman is able to buy multiple weapons for her 14 year old son, who was planning on attacking his old schoolmates. Obviously, the woman is an idiot, but doesn't this help the argument that pretty much anyone can get a gun these days? Hell, if I wanted, I could go out, buy some guns, and blow some stuff up. And that's what other people are realizing too, and they are taking advantage of it.

I agree that if the government was to totally go out of control and try to make the country into a dictatorship, or if another country was to invade, having a people's militia would be necessary. I just don't see either happening any time soon.

[rahmota]

Greenday:

the problem is we are seeing more and more school shootings

Really I didnt think we where seeing that many more? And anyhow its not the fault of the firearms or the firearms owner or availability of the firearms that is causing these few isolated incidents but a failure of the schools, parents and society in general to take responsibility for the root causes of the incidents.

Oh and do you know how many school shooting there have been in all of 2007? 3. Yes 3 total. I will agree that 3 is 3 too many but if peopel had taken the time to stop and discover the root cause of the shootings they could have been prevented. And just removing firearms are not going to get rid of the root causes of school shootings.

I keep hearing people whinging on about how there are so many school shootings and how much firearms violence there are in the media? Well you know why the media reports on these thigns? Because it sells! It makes them money! It goes with their bias that they feed off of and into the way people think. A very circular logic with the media. Sell the drama, sell the scare and they can be the ones who have the scooop.

You never see the media report on how a loyal firearms owner saved a life or protected their property from a vicious mad dog criminal. You never see about how someone took the time to stop and talk to a troubled kid before they went and did something unpleasantly tragic.

But a people's militia is a legal, moral fact of life garunteed by the constitution of the united states of america. It is part and parcel of our legal code and our social traditions. There are a million and one reason for a people's militia to exist. I am a member of the citizen's militia as is any other american over the age of 18. We are the militia. We are the last line of defense for our homes, our families our neighbors.

but doesn't this help the argument that pretty much anyone can get a gun these days

Bullshit! Firearms are less available and more tightly controlled as to who may or may not purchase them than at any time in the history of this country. And it has not helped reduce violence or crime in this country by one bit. Criminals can still get acccess to firearms of all sorts. By denying the citizen the right to defend themselves and their families all you do is make the criminals job that much easier!

I have a 1958 sears catalogue that was my mothers that has army surplus M1 garands available in it for MAIL ORDER! Thats right a mail order catalogue that did not require you to do anythign other than send them a check or money order and you too could have your own military surplus rifle. Heck you used to be able to walk into the general store and the rifles would be out in plain sight where everyone could get to them and touch them and look at them. And there wasnt the same kind of paranoia and hatred of firearms and violence was there but it was not as bad as it is now. There are more murders in LA than there ever where in the wild west in a year.

You know why? Disarmament of citizens. Demonization of firearms. Media irresponsibility. Personal responsibility being traded off for a false sense of security from the government or other organizations. People wanting to look anywhere they can to throw the blame than in the mirro. People who wish to trade their freedom and liberty for security deserve neither!

Oh and one other thign I feel deserves being repeated. Firearms are not the cause of criminal violence or criminal activities there are other reasons that are socially around (capitalism, corporate thievery etc...) that cause criminal activity.

[Greenday]

Honestly, I have no opinion on the issue. I just enjoy providing counter-arguments to get people thinking.

One of the main reasons we didn't have such strict laws back in the past was because we didn't need them. Once guns started becoming a "problem", more laws were put in place.

I honestly don't believe ANYONE should be able to have a gun. Known criminals and otherwise proven violent people shouldn't be given more tools to commit crimes with.

But if the time comes where the people NEED to defend themselves from foreign invaders or a military run government where the people lose all their rights, you can be sure I won't be caught dead without having something to protect myself with and it sure as hell won't be just a bb gun.

[rahmota]

But if the time comes where the people NEED to defend themselves from foreign invaders or a military run government where the people lose all their rights,

You do realize though that if your comment previous to that one came true then if the time came there would be noone or nothing available to defend yourself with? An armed person is a citizen an unarmed one is a subject.

Also a lot of the "problems" with firearms have come about because 1: The media feeds into it with ther frenzy of vulture reporting. and 2) Societies move away from personal responsibility into the nanny tate letting others think for people and act like the government or the churchs or some other organization knows better how to live your life than you do.

Known criminals and otherwise proven violent people shouldn't be given more tools to commit crimes with.

And the criminals will finda way to comit their crimes without fear ofpeople beingable to defend themselves if the entire citizenry is reduced to defenseless sheep.

[NightAngel]

I've always been a fan of Chris Rock's take on gun control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdJGcrUk2eE

I don't have a gun.
I won't have a gun.
Surprisingly, I've lived 35 years without ever once needing a gun. I have zero use for a gun- it'd be a supreme waste of money. If I owned a gun it would be locked up and dusty somewhere because I don't have any use for it. My daily life does not involve wild animals, hunting, zombies or much of anything else I might need to shoot at.

Granted, I don't hunt or live on a farm where wild animals might attack my livestock either. Yes, there are certain situations where I can understand someone needing a gun. Those situations are pretty rare though.

I also frequently find the types of guns that people claim they need/have the right to own amusing. No individual NEEDS a fully automatic (or even semi) assault rifle.

The other point that people frequently make to me is that their guns are securely locked in a cabnet, unloaded with the ammo kept somewhere else for safety. Then, in the same breath, tell me that if someone broke into their house they'd use the gun to protect their belongings...
So, you have to get the keys, unlock the cabnet, get the ammo, load the gun...

Shit, if I was a burglar you'd be dead before then 'cause MY gun's already loaded and ready to shoot you.
Besides, it's just stuff. Stuff can be replaced.

I'm not completely against guns- I just don't think that every yahoo on Earth needs one.

[rahmota]

Nightangel: Hmmm. I'll give you that circumstances are different for different people and some people might not use firearms as frequently as others however denying those who do use firearms or need firearms or even just want firearms for whatever reason and are responsible with them because someone doesnt like them or want them is an action only deserving of an evil empire. Not only is it in blatent violation of the basic rights and freedoms of the constitution it goes against the whole point of the revolution in that each person has the right to live their life as they choose without undue governmental interference or even interference from their neighbors.

There are already laws against actions and behaviors that are criminal and irresponsible. There is no need for many of the more draconian firearms laws (or really many of the laws that are on the books based on someones arbitrary "morals".)

No individual NEEDS a fully automatic (or even semi) assault rifle.

And many people dont NEED a huge military basd SUV should we prohibit everyone from having one because they don't need it? People dont NEED to have a home entertainment system, playstation or XBOX, people dont need an icrud phone tv fax machine whatever else they can cram into it should we ban them? The point is if we had to show a definate NEED to be able to own something then most of the things in people's lives would not be available to them. Oh and assault rifle is not a proper term for a firearm as it is too broad a category based on personal opinion and feelings and not any particular characteristics or features of a firearm.

Stuff can be replaced

Some stuff cannot be replaced. i have a few family heirlooms sitting around that i would shoot someone if they tried to steal it as they are closely linked with my family an my blood. Besides it is the point of the violation of my home and hearth by a criminal that is why I would defend my sanctum sanctorum so vehemently. And in my household it takes under 1 minute for me to get to a firearm and be in condition one from which it takes like 1 second to go to condition 0. Ths is from practice and practical knowledge. And this is also with keeping the firearms in a safe condition. Knowledge is the most powerful thign in the universe, know yourself and know your condition and know your equipment. Unfortunately too many people are too lazy to do any f that and just demonizes thigns without trying to understand them

I too have lived 34 years. In that time period I have NEEDED to use a firearm several times. I have enjoyed owning and using firearms recreationally. I am proud and pleased to be associated with other reasponsible firearms owners and their families. My firearms are polished and maintained properly according to US milspec. I am ready in all sense of the word to defend myself,my family and my home from any threats. I am a citizen.

[NightAngel]

Rahotma:

I didn't say that firearms should be denied to everyone.
I really think that if people were smart they could base their own need- sadly, some people just think owning a gun makes them cool. Alternately, I know some people believe that they have the responsibility to own a gun should we ever have to take up arms and defend American soil. Most of those people (that I know) keep their gun/s in good condition and locked up. No need to flaunt them to the world and no need to have them out- because unless that day is to ever come- they don't need it.

As for the SUV statement (I'm thinking Hummer here?):
No. No one NEEDS a Hummer. And actually I'd vote for the banning of giant, resource wasting SUV's before I'd vote to ban guns. So there.
(That, however, is a different argument entirely.)

As for tvs, fax machines, etc.:
No, most people don't really need those either. But then, when was the last time you heard of death by fax? They really don't fall into the same category.

Assault Rifle:
Uzi, M16, AK-47, etc. I thought the term 'Assault Rifle' was relatively clear. I suppose people can debate anything, eh?

Unfortunately too many people are too lazy to do any f that and just demonizes thigns without trying to understand them...

...I am proud and pleased to be associated with other reasponsible firearms owners and their families.

Uhm... exactly.

I wish that all people who owned guns were as knowledgeable and safety oriented as you. If they were I doubt that gun control would be such a huge issue.

Another sad thing is this:

As a general rule, in most situations, I'd never know if someone owns a gun nor would I care.
It's the people who flaunt that worry me. I live in a state where carrying concealed is legal with a license. You want to know how I know that they have the license? Because they flaunt it when they don't get their way (SC's).
I consider it a threat.
I throw them out and invite them never to return- only not that nicely.

I get one of these assholes once or twice a year.

So, yes... maybe my view of guns is *slightly* tweaked by shitheads.
In my life I've had a few bad gun related experiences. It would be very easy, based on those experiences, to say BAN ALL GUNS!
But I don't- I try and be a bit more logical and fair than that.

[rahmota]

Ok I'm sorry I was kinda free associateing with my thoughts based on your commetns. Or Chris Rock's comments whichever. (I dont particularly care about or for Chris Rock and find him a talentless bore in general IMO)


Sorry for the confusion about the term assault rifle. like I said I use the military or national firearms manufacturer's association definitions. Assault rifle is a rather nebulous term bandied about by the anti-firearm community that doesnt really describe an actual weapon systems. It describes the useage of said weapon system. Pedantic and all I know but one of the thigns about a debate is precision in words. If we are discussing the usage of a weapon system then i'll agree with we are discussing the actual weapon systems themselves i'll not use the term and if I see it used then I'll probably go with the definitions i'm familiar with.

As for flaunting them I'm not sure what you mean by flaunting them. I have no problem with displaying a firearm in a rack or cabinet with proper security measures.

I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences with firearms owners. Growing up in a rural area with military family members and all I never had that many bad experiences (if any that I can recall). I certainly do apoligze for those people and am glad you know they are not the majority of firearms owners.

[CancelMyService]

Maybe it's just me not being a rabid gun fanatic (which is odd, since my family is heavily military and my dad was a gun enthusiast to some degree), but I just don't see how someone can be SO fervent about firearms. I think it's a mindset that I just don't understand.

I mean, there's debate about policy and there's just common sense. Guns really don't have any other purpose other than killing or maiming. Yes if a gun is sitting on a table, it's not likely to do any harm. You can also say a mountain of cocaine sitting on a table isn't going to hurt anyone either unless someone snorts it. I don't think anyone would make the argument there shouldn't be any restrictions on cocaine just because of the way some people use it.

The whole "we may need guns to defend against the government" argument makes less and less sense the more people try to explain it. Hell, the current administration cares less about the constitution than any other in recent memory and by and large the gun community doesn't seem to mind much because they haven't made a move against the second amendment. We've got a President who pretty much operates on a "I'm gonna do whatever I want and no one can stop me" policy, and as long as he courts the NRA he gets 8 years in office. Heckuva job, gun owners.

[Greenday]

Come on, you may not agree with arguments for guns, but you can't blame gun owners for the president being elected for two terms. First of all, the popular vote means nothing. Second of all, a lot of non-gun owners voted for Bush too.

Can you not see gun usage as a sport at all? Aiming contests, speed shooting at targets. I mean, some people don't see golf as a sport, or fishing. Hell, fishing is a great example. Fishing contests hurt animals. Shooting contests hurt...paper?

And yes, a lot of gun usage does result in hurting other people, but there can be importance in the use of a gun in self-defense. If an unarmed thief enters someone's home, and is confronted with the sight of the receiving end of a gun, I HIGHLY doubt the thief will continue to rob the house. The gun doesn't even have to be loaded. The thief would never know.