1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

In wake of recent shootings FL wants to loosen Gun Control! I love it!

Discussion in 'The OT' started by cj9788, Jan 26, 2011.

  1. Athlon646464

    Athlon646464 Gold Members DBSTalk Gold Club

    3,045
    66
    Feb 23, 2007
    Uxbridge, MA
    And that would be a good thing? Scary


    My understanding of our right to bear arms is that it is a protection for us against our government as much as anything else. It was originally meant as a way to keep them in check.

    Isn't it also true that in states with the most lax gun laws that crime with guns in most of those states is lower than in states with strict gun control laws?

    Laws meant to take stuff away from us never work for the good people (prohibition, anyone?). They drive the newly created unlawful traffic underground (illegal drugs, anyone?) and create even bigger problems.

    As for allowing 'weapons of mass destruction' as an argument against continuing to allow guns, you can't debate with someone who has no common sense. (And we've lost a lot of that lately.)

    We already have laws against killing people, with guns or anything else. And that makes sense. Taking guns away will not reduce the number of homicides in this country. The number will at best stay about the same. :nono2:
     
  2. James Long

    James Long Ready for Uplink! Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    45,954
    1,026
    Apr 17, 2003
    Michiana
    Chicken or egg? It seems that areas with less gun crimes would not see the need for stronger laws. Areas that have a bigger gun problem need to reign in gun laws.
     
  3. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Additionally, the Court enumerated several longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession that it found were consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits State and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
     
  4. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,540
    538
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    Wrong again. Areas as you refer to them need to crack down on their criminal population. The French had the right idea with Devil's Island. You served every minute of your sentence inside the prison walls. When released you lived the remainder of your life outside those walls. Never allowed to return and offend society again. ;)
     
  5. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,540
    538
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    +1......They had the wisdom not to "interpret" the second admendent but to understand it by using the language it was written in and the "definitions " of the words used.
     
  6. BattleZone

    BattleZone Hall Of Fame

    8,969
    1
    Nov 13, 2007
    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason (3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

    "The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..." -- Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788, page 169.

    "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." -- Tench Coxe - 1788.
     
  7. bobukcat

    bobukcat Hall Of Fame

    1,965
    2
    Dec 20, 2005
    Yes, and buying a fire extinguisher is a premeditated decision to start a fire. :flaiming
     
  8. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    Looking at any specific single point in time, this might seem to be a reasonable assumption. But given the statistics for areas where existing laws have been loosened, including CC rights, it is easily disproved.
     
  9. jclewter79

    jclewter79 Hall Of Fame

    1,833
    0
    Jan 8, 2008
    Owning a gun for personal protection is like buying life insurance. You hope to never need it but, you don't want to be without it if you do need it. Just because I own life insurance does not mean I want to die in an untimely manner. Just because I own a gun does not mean I want to kill anybody.
     
  10. bobukcat

    bobukcat Hall Of Fame

    1,965
    2
    Dec 20, 2005
    So you would deprive the hundreds of thousands of hunters who never break the law with a firearm and also pay more money towards conservation and species control than any other group? You would deprive all the millions of children who have learned responsible gun ownership, sportsmanship and respect for life and nature - all because they never served? If that's your opinion you're certainly entitled to it but I think you neglect the amazing amount of positive impact these people have and have had over the years.

    The Civilian Marksmanship Program got it's start in the early 1900s when President Roosevelt and congress saw that having a large number of it's citizens already at least somewhat trained with a firearm would be a significant advantage if (or when) a military draft became necessary.
     
  11. wilbur_the_goose

    wilbur_the_goose Hall Of Fame

    4,493
    52
    Aug 16, 2006
    Whenever I come across a complicated issue like this, I force myself to try to argue the "opposite" point of view. It really helps my understanding, and I wish others would do this too.

    You don't have to agree, but understanding another POV does wonder for your own critical thinking.
     
  12. Stewart Vernon

    Stewart Vernon Roving Reporter Staff Member Super Moderator DBSTalk Club

    21,611
    382
    Jan 7, 2005
    Kittrell, NC
    You completely missed my point. Let's try again.

    In order to give a "right" you have to take something away from others.

    The only "natural rights" would be ones that no one could possibly take away.

    IF it can be taken away, then it isn't a natural right... period.

    So... we need things like law and our Constitution to "give" rights to people that we all agree people should be entitled to.

    "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are in the Constitution as these "unalienable rights"... So, your right to kill things with your gun ends with the Constitution granted right to life for that other person.

    You might like to think about the Bill of Rights as a right-granting document... but it really is about defining the limited scope of allowed rights.

    The Constitution limits us as citizens every bit as much as it liberates us... it's just a matter of perspective.

    Your right to own property inherently limits my right to own that same property since I cannot own it while you own it... thus we invoke laws against stealing other people's property to protect your right to ownership.... So your right to own limits my right to own.

    In most cases the rights and laws are meant to extend fairness and opportunity to the masses... but they do end up limiting things too, that's just how it works.

    So again we get back to the crux of this debate that some keep wanting to steer away from.

    If you are for the "right to bear arms" do you limit what those arms are or don't you?

    If you see that the right for arms means ANY and all possible arms... then you have a very black & white view of the right, and you would appear to be in the minority.

    If you think that the right for arms should (or does) have limits... then you can't speak in terms of the "right to bear arms" being a finite and specific thing.

    Personally, I support the right as I understand it... but I do believe in limits. I don't want guns myself... but you can have some if you want. I do think some guns, however, should not be in the possession of the average citizen as they have very little use except for breaking other laws. I also don't want personal nuclear weapons or biological weapons either.

    So either you believe all "arms" are appropriate or you don't... You have to pick that side before you can continue in a debate. If you believe all, then there is no debate because your position is very wide on arms, and clearly you would be against any form of gun control. If, however, you believe some weapons are not appropriate then you are willing to draw a line... so then we can all debate where that line should be drawn.
     
  13. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,540
    538
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    I have looked at the opposite point of view (anti gun) for nearly fifty years now. Since November,1963 they have done their worse to ban, prohibit and curtail the sale and ownership of firearms in this country. They started by proclaiming they were only against handguns and not against collectors, hunters or sportsmen. They coined the phrase "Saturday Night Special" and how these types of handguns were the most common ones used in violent crimes, were cheaply made, inexpensive to purchase, easily concealed and that no law abiding sportsmen, hunter or collector would have a need or want to own one. What strikes me odd was that they labeled the Colt 45 ACP, the 44 magnum with a 8" barrel and the snub nose 357 magnum as "Saturday NIght Specials"! Three of the most precision made, expensive to purchase and difficult to conceal handguns ever made! Next came their attack on rifles and shotguns (remember, they're not against collectors, hunters and sportsmen) and labeled most of them as "Assault Rifles" and again stating no law abiding citizen would want or have the need to own one. Still not satisfied they first tried to ban, then restrict the sale of ammo and magazines while still proclaiming they are not against collectors, hunters and sportsmen. Oh, did I forget to mention the thousands of useless gun laws they have sponsored through the decades all in the name of crime prevention and public safety. That's some point of view they have. :rolleyes:
     
  14. phrelin

    phrelin Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    15,055
    317
    Jan 18, 2007
    Northern...
    Let me reiterate:

    About the gun control debate.
    The nuclear weapon one is supposed to be inane because it deals with the absurdity of the 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms" argument. Let me reiterate:


    I don't get the concept of a .45 Model 1911A for protection unless you're on the range every couple of weeks. Even then, under extreme stress people tend to not hit what they need too with their first shot and it's too easy lose control of a .45 IMHO.

    For many years, the .22 magnum AMT Automag was my suggestion to people who just must have a handgun for protection but who I knew weren't likely to be on the range more than a couple of times a year. There are better comparable .22 magnum handguns today. As a self-defense handgun, the .22 WMR has compiled a 42% one shot stop rate.

    Of course, for 99% of people I don't recommend buying a gun for self-defense anyway.
     
  15. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    My owning a "specific" piece of property does not usurp your right to property ownership. It's not any sort of unfair "give and take". You have a right to own property, you do not have right to unlawfully take mine or anyone else’s. If I own it, then you have no specific rights to ownership of it. If the property is available, then you have the same rights as anyone else regarding its ownership.
    As for my views on what arms are acceptable to own, I agree with the most widely upheld interpretation which allows for ownership of any weapon deemed to be in common use at the time. For the purposes outlined in the 2nd amendment, I would consider that to be any style of weapon employed by our common infantry soldiers and law enforcement. So if I have indicate a specific type, I would say any type of fully automatic rifle designed and commonly used by today’s soldiers and tactical law enforcement officers are certainly acceptable. This would allow the average citizen to be knowledgeable and moderately proficient with the current weaponry in the event a militia is needed by the state, or in the event that the citizenry is required to protect its rights from the state itself.

    Further clarification: this is not to imply that I agree that owning other weapons beyond that should be "automatically" banned, not at all. I would only concede that banning them might be allowable under the constitution as it stands today.
     
  16. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,540
    538
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    I consider myself a average citizen. I have voted in every election since becoming of legal age, pay taxes, served my country with honor in the U.S. Army for twenty five years, have no criminal record nor am I mentally ill. I possess both federal and state firearms liscense and legally own the types of firearms you do not believe others should possess. On the contrary they do have use for sport and as collection pieces are not used in breaking laws as you stated. How in hell nuclear and biological weapons entered this debate is beyond me but if you people insist then don't forget chemical weapons!
     
  17. MysteryMan

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    8,540
    538
    May 17, 2010
    USA
    With all respect the 45 is a "man stopper". If the assailant is high on drugs the .22 WMR will have the same effect as a mosquito bite.
     
  18. Rich

    Rich DBSTalk Club DBSTalk Club

    27,280
    555
    Feb 22, 2007
    Piscataway, NJ
    Gotta agree with you about the .45. Even tho I was proficient with it, I was never really comfortable with it. Way too much kick to keep it on target. Never really got the whole pistol thing. I can't see any reason for them except to kill someone.

    That's where this whole discussion is skewed. Some of us are talking about weapons made for one purpose, killing people, and others are lumping in hunting rifles and weapons worthy of collecting. Just confuses the issue.

    Rich
     
  19. cj9788

    cj9788 Hall Of Fame

    1,669
    2
    May 14, 2003
    I have asked my self this ever since it was first mentioned. I guess it is a really long stretch but IMO no reasonable person would lump a machine gun and a nuclear bomb is the same category. talk about comparing apples and zucchini.
     
  20. BattleScott

    BattleScott Hall Of Fame

    2,353
    7
    Aug 28, 2006
    When it comes to personal protection, what other purpose should there be?
    There's a real simple way to avoid being killed by one...
     

Share This Page