Thread: Supreme Court finds individual right to own guns

Hi again folks,
Amyn, one man's "right wing rhetoric" is another's gospel. Do you dislike it because of who printed it or because of what it says? Most of the opposition statements, which, incidentally seem to me to make even more far reaching claims, could just as easily be proclaimed "left wing rhetoric", or even communist propaganda. Doesn't make the numbers false. I do not believe that the founders or anyone else felt that the government should be deciding we can only have this weapon, or that weapon, and restricted from the other, because, well, only the government gets to have THOSE. I feel if the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, etc. it should make no difference what the citizens want to own wrt arms.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Where I live, the police mostly stop people who have burned-out tail lights. They mainly leave the bikers alone. Other than that, I'm not sure.

j

So, you would leave the option of lethal force only in their hands?
How fast do you think they would respond to your house if the "bikers" were coming for you?

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Pretty hard-core libertarian, and therefore suspect.

No information seems to be available on their funding.

j

Jim, it would appear that no source contrary to what you wish to believe, e.g. guns=bad and therefore Americans owning guns=bad, meets your standards. Fact of the matter is there is NO completely unbiased study, as gun control advocates want the studies to show firearms are inherently evil and citizens are not trustworthy and should subject themselves to the protection of the government, meanwhile firearms rights advocates, such as myself, are drawn to the studies showing net crime reduction in locales which reduce the death hold on gun rights.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

You need to bear in mind the statistical "confounding variable." That's the often outlying factor that may not have been considered that renders the hypothesis suspect.

In this case, he cites data from 1977 to 1994. The confounding variable in that time period is that the Baby Boom generation passed through the primary violent crime-committing years. All violent crime decreased in those years for that reason.

Doesn't disprove his theory, but renders his assertions unproven.

j

Just thought I would point out, that just because the "Baby Boom" generation has gotten older doesn't mean there aren't people born every day. I admit perhaps a little laziness here, but just wanted to point out that there are ALWAYS citizens in those "primary violent crime-committing years". Per capita it really doesn't matter how old "Baby Boomers" "Gen-X"ers or any other group is.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

...
No research I've seen suggests that the number of crimes stopped by an armed citizen comes anywhere near the number of crimes and accidents enabled by wide-spread gun ownership.

This statement does not follow. First, it is apparent you rule out any research which disagrees with your personal beliefs, but secondly this makes the blanket statement that widespread crimes and accidents are enabled by widespread gun ownership, which, is obviously, an opinion of yours. Pre-US days, in many locations firearms ownership was mandatory yet strangely, it didn't lead to an increase in crime rates. Likewise in modern times, areas with less restrictive gun laws also typically have lower crime rates per capita, not higher. Most restrictive gun laws: LA, NYC, DC...highest murder rates: LA, NYC, DC... just as an example. One could also point at the Swiss, who have all the same modern conveniences we do (and likely more) as well as an automatic weapon in every household. EXTREMELY low crime rate.
Most of the more guns=more crime doesn't wash, in spite of how appealing it may seem.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

We also need to go upside Hollywood's head about their mania for brainwashing our children into thinking that violence is a solution. Every time Hollywood tries to show kids that they can solve problems with guns, we should be all over them.

Here, I agree completely. +1. It is ridiculous that as Americans we decry foreign television shows which perhaps show more nudity, sexuality, or some such-something anyone married experiences, hopefully-but we would gladly show our children gang-related, brutal, violent, gory MURDER, without blinking, then we let them play it out graphically as if THEY were the star, shooting police officers, selling drugs, etc. on their playstations. Where are our priorities!

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Just an opinion. It's what the NRA should be doing -- promoting a responsible image of gun ownership, not cowboys and Indians.

j

Jim, this displays a huge ignorance of what the NRA is and does. Every man has his own favorite flavor of propaganda, but perhaps do some research on what the NRA actually is and does, not what your own particular flavor of propagandists says it does. The irresponsible image of gun ownership? Comes from your friendly activists (who don't know) and Hollywood in general, not the NRA.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Actually, I normally do give backup. I believe I acknowledged being a bit lazy this time around.

Don't get me started on the NRA. Really. They don't represent gun owners. They represent gun manufacturers. The NRA Loooooves gun violence on TV. They love convincing people that guns=manhood. They love creating gun-nuts -- those folks who convince the rest of the country that gun owners aren't to be trusted. Not only do they do absolutely nothing to counter the negative image of gun owners, they actually go out of their way to promote it. Within days of the Columbine shootings, the NRA was in Columbine holding rallies and taunting the grieving families. It was unbelievable.

Jim, perhaps you may have guessed several on here (self included) are members of the NRA. Not saying what you are claiming is false, but I've never heard of any such rallies to taunt grieving families. I just don't believe you in this regard. Often what does happen is that when someone commits a crime, all of the anti-gun organizations use the blood of the victims as a cheap, dirty spring board to push their political agendas, and every time one hears on the news there was a mass shooting, Hollywood types scramble to claim their gun-toting, trenchcoat wearing underdog-hero (Matrix, just as an example) had nothing to do with students who felt oppressed thinking they could do the same. So, there is ALWAYS after such incidents a scramble to take rights away from Americans. This is unacceptable use of the loss of others, and the NRA has to defend against these attacks on our liberties, as do other citizens' organizations. If you don't want to own a firearm, that's your prerogative. Blaming it for murder is misguided justice. One doesn't see bills in Congress *the next day* after someone is killed in a car crash, to ban cars, nor, after a serial killer killed multitudes with a claw hammer, was there a movement to "register" claw hammers and their owners, like dogs in a kennel. We are citizens, Jim, and have broken no law. It is time for the hatred of law abiding gun owners to stop, and the education to start, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Why else do they oppose safety equipment? Why do they oppose banning plastic guns that might get through security? Why do they insist that hunters have a sporting need for magazines that hold more than 30 rounds? Why won't they even try to educate the public about the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon. It's all so the manufacturers can sell more stuff. They care about the short-term profit, not the fact that if their negligence creates enough of a backlash, we're all losers. They don't look that far forward. It's really scandalous.

I could go on. Stop me now.

j

Ok, Jim. Stop.
A whole lot of statements here that aren't backed up, nor for the most part, are they true. Oppose safety equipment? Not at all. Equipment which would prevent a gun owner from effectively using said firearm to defend one's family? That is a different case altogether.
Magazines over 30 rounds? Why does this matter to you. In my job for the government, I sometimes fire a gun that holds four THOUSAND rounds, and I can stream them through your window from a moving helicopter almost half mile away, at between two and four thousand rounds per MINUTE. Now. If a law abiding citizen wants to have a military style weapon, (exactly what I believe the 2nd Amendment protects, incidentally) then, since he is a free citizen of the United States of America, and not some lowly subject of some other nation, I say he shall keep it, and may it provide him and his family much enjoyment, and never have to be fired in anger.


John P.

Hey John,

you raise a good point about bias.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Fact of the matter is there is NO completely unbiased study, as gun control advocates want the studies to show firearms are inherently evil and citizens are not trustworthy and should subject themselves to the protection of the government, meanwhile firearms rights advocates, such as myself, are drawn to the studies showing net crime reduction in locales which reduce the death hold on gun rights.

I completely agree with your point if you mean that bias shows up in how we interpret the data. There is usually an amount of built in bias when surveying any kind of social data. However that doesn't mean that meaningful data hasn't been collected. The real question of bias comes in the interpretation and weighing the importance of the numbers. For example, with regards to the W Post editorial you chose to focus on the data as it pertained to suicides, whereas I chose to focus on seeming effectiveness during home invasions - both of us exhibiting obvious bias. The key will be having decision makers who are able to approach the issue from as objective a view point as possible. I believe that some SC justices on both sides of the decision tried to do that.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I do not believe that the founders or anyone else felt that the government should be deciding we can only have this weapon, or that weapon, and restricted from the other, because, well, only the government gets to have THOSE. I feel if the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, etc. it should make no difference what the citizens want to own wrt arms.

Keep in mind that the founding fathers lived in a time when population density was basically non-existent and their weapons could fire a single round. Surely there has to be a line where it becomes unreasonable to allow anyone access to any weapon. The armed forces maintains arms to protect the nation and it's interests. You would know better than I, but I assume that weapons are less frequently stolen from the armed forces armouries than from peoples' bedrooms. Also I suspect there are few six year olds rooting around the armouries and magazines. The point being that the "government's weapon" are usually handled with a very high degree of responsibility and care. If it could be guaranteed that every gun owner would do the same I suspect the 2nd amendment would be a non-issue.

Is there no amount of destructive power which is unreasonable to be allowed to be kept in someone's suburban rec room? An M203 launcher, an M249, a SRAW? (yes, I played a lot of BF2 when I had an internet connection that could handle it ). If people are keeping these things in their underwear drawer, waiting for the day when the nation is ruled by a despotic tyrant, so that he may be overthrown - well, I'm sad that there is such little trust in our system on their part.

Because the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, doesn't mean they are equivalent in terms of authority and responsibility. If that's true, I'm going to start collecting taxes . I have a keen interest in physics, chemistry and biology. The bill of rights doesn't explicity discuss my rights with regards to home chemistry and yet I have no right to mix up a batch of ricin in my kitchen no matter how responsible and careful I am.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Just thought I would point out, that just because the "Baby Boom" generation has gotten older doesn't mean there aren't people born every day. I admit perhaps a little laziness here, but just wanted to point out that there are ALWAYS citizens in those "primary violent crime-committing years". Per capita it really doesn't matter how old "Baby Boomers" "Gen-X"ers or any other group is.

I believe the point being made was that, while the total population is gradually increasing, the age distribution fluctuates considerably. The number of people in the "crime committing ages" is anything but static.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Likewise in modern times, areas with less restrictive gun laws also typically have lower crime rates per capita, not higher. Most restrictive gun laws: LA, NYC, DC...highest murder rates: LA, NYC, DC... just as an example. One could also point at the Swiss, who have all the same modern conveniences we do (and likely more) as well as an automatic weapon in every household. EXTREMELY low crime rate.

This is a chicken-egg problem. Cities implement stricter gun laws usually to address a pre-existing problem with gun crimes. One could ask the question - how much worse would the problem be without strict gun laws?

Switzerland has mandatory military service, and annual mandatory refresher courses. Perhaps that every male is taught to handle weapons with respect and responsibility (I'm making an assumption that this a common feature of most modern armed forces) has an impact of attitude and wisdom regarding handling of weapons.

If you want to compare to other nations, the impact of culture is usually overlooked and in my opinion far from insignificant. Some cultures are simply more law abiding than others. And acceptable conflict resolution varies hugely from culture to culture. My interpretation of this is that wide spread gun ownership will cause more issues in some cultures than others.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Here, I agree completely. +1. It is ridiculous that as Americans we decry foreign television shows which perhaps show more nudity, sexuality, or some such-something anyone married experiences, hopefully-but we would gladly show our children gang-related, brutal, violent, gory MURDER, without blinking, then we let them play it out graphically as if THEY were the star, shooting police officers, selling drugs, etc. on their playstations. Where are our priorities!

+10

Originally Posted by JohnP

Jim, perhaps you may have guessed several on here (self included) are members of the NRA. Not saying what you are claiming is false, but I've never heard of any such rallies to taunt grieving families.

I believe the reference was to the NRA convention that was held in Denver very shortly after the Columbine tragedy. The NRA scaled back, but refused to reschedule the event or change venue when asked to do so.

Originally Posted by JohnP

One doesn't see bills in Congress *the next day* after someone is killed in a car crash, to ban cars, nor, after a serial killer killed multitudes with a claw hammer, was there a movement to "register" claw hammers and their owners, like dogs in a kennel. We are citizens, Jim, and have broken no law. It is time for the hatred of law abiding gun owners to stop, and the education to start, IMHO.

You are comparing apples to oranges to some extent. Hammers and cars are designed to transport people and put nails into lumber. Firearms are designed to kill and injure, or threaten to do so. Yes, they are ubiquitously used for target practise and recreation, but to argue that it was for this purpose that firearms have been developed into such efficient tools is disingenuous.

It is a complex issue and I think statements like "guns = bad" and "the founding fathers guaranteed that we can own any weapon we want" do nothing to solve or even lessen the very real problem of gun crime.

The problem with the 2nd amendement is that it is now used in debates, in a way which was never foreseen by the founders.
A gun in that day was a front loading musket. They would never have imagined that things like M60's or Gatling guns would exist one day.

Why would a private citizen own one of these? for NOT shooting other people?
The only times such a weapon would be used is in the hypothetical situation of an open revolt against the government (which will never happen) or if the owner snaps and goes on a killing spree.

And if you want M60, why not rocket launchers? Apache helicopters? Anti aircraft guns? Nuclear weapons? Where would you draw the line?

Such weapons have 0 practical purpose for defense scenarios, so there is no reason for owning them. Their only purpose is military, so it makes sense that only the military has them.

Originally Posted by Bruno

The problem with the 2nd amendement is that it is now used in debates, in a way which was never foreseen by the founders.
A gun in that day was a front loading musket. They would never have imagined that things like M60's or Gatling guns would exist one day.

Why would a private citizen own one of these? for NOT shooting other people?
The only times such a weapon would be used is in the hypothetical situation of an open revolt against the government (which will never happen) or if the owner snaps and goes on a killing spree.

And if you want M60, why not rocket launchers? Apache helicopters? Anti aircraft guns? Nuclear weapons? Where would you draw the line?

Such weapons have 0 practical purpose for defense scenarios, so there is no reason for owning them. Their only purpose is military, so it makes sense that only the military has them.

I would like to point out that there are a number of m-60 and anti air craft guns in private hand and legally registered and have never been used in the commission of a crime so why should you fear them? Let people have what they want until they prove they can't handle it. I don't agree with people having nuclear weapons but pretty much everything else yes. People prove themselves all them time that they are capable of owning them and making the correct decisions on the recreational firing of those weapons everytime.

Originally Posted by Photoguy67

I would like to point out that there are a number of m-60 and anti air craft guns in private hand and legally registered and have never been used in the commission of a crime ...

I do believe you have the answer there!




Think about it:

- small magazine size
- kids unlikely to be able to load/operate it
- hard to conceal or carry in a public place
- might be used for a crime, but the getaway would be slow and ponderous
- tough to steal someone else's
- and, in terms of recreation, a HELL of a lot of FUN!




Also, Jim, I'm glad I wasn't in your nursery school.

Pudu that reminds me of the miniature tank an MIT student built (Will Foster)

FOXNews.com - College Student Builds His Very Own Tank - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

Pudu that reminds me of the miniature tank an MIT student built

Was his name Krupp?

Clearly I chose the wrong classes at university .

Another book. Sorry folks. One day I'll learn to be more concise, but not today, apparently.

Originally Posted by Pudu

Hey John,

you raise a good point about bias.



I completely agree with your point if you mean that bias shows up in how we interpret the data. There is usually an amount of built in bias when surveying any kind of social data. However that doesn't mean that meaningful data hasn't been collected. The real question of bias comes in the interpretation and weighing the importance of the numbers. For example, with regards to the W Post editorial you chose to focus on the data as it pertained to suicides, whereas I chose to focus on seeming effectiveness during home invasions - both of us exhibiting obvious bias. The key will be having decision makers who are able to approach the issue from as objective a view point as possible. I believe that some SC justices on both sides of the decision tried to do that.

Makes sense.

Originally Posted by Pudu

Keep in mind that the founding fathers lived in a time when population density was basically non-existent and their weapons could fire a single round. Surely there has to be a line where it becomes unreasonable to allow anyone access to any weapon. The armed forces maintains arms to protect the nation and it's interests. You would know better than I, but I assume that weapons are less frequently stolen from the armed forces armouries than from peoples' bedrooms. Also I suspect there are few six year olds rooting around the armouries and magazines. The point being that the "government's weapon" are usually handled with a very high degree of responsibility and care. If it could be guaranteed that every gun owner would do the same I suspect the 2nd amendment would be a non-issue.

Agree and disagree here. Good point about people less likely to steal from the government, but it does indeed happen, I'm sure. My issue, I guess, is that the power of the government to keep us in line, if you will, grows and grows and grows, yet we are being conditioned to think only the government can be trusted with that power. Which, I think, was never the intent of the framers, either. It is true that early firearms only fired one round at a time typically (which is why Ben Franklin suggested the revolting colonists use longbows instead, due to their higher rate of fire and generally higher accuracy compared to, say, a Brown Bess musket). However, it is also known that the government at the time also only possessed single shot weapons at the time, including (when we were British) the forces of the British Empire.

Originally Posted by Pudu

Is there no amount of destructive power which is unreasonable to be allowed to be kept in someone's suburban rec room? An M203 launcher, an M249, a SRAW? (yes, I played a lot of BF2 when I had an internet connection that could handle it ). If people are keeping these things in their underwear drawer, waiting for the day when the nation is ruled by a despotic tyrant, so that he may be overthrown - well, I'm sad that there is such little trust in our system on their part.

I would turn this question around. Felons are not supposedly allowed to buy firearms in the first place. Suppose a law abiding citizen just WANTS to have one of those. I feel it is his right. I also think one of the reasons people DO trust the system, is that a system which did not have the best interests of its citizens in mind would not allow them to be competently armed. It only takes one despotic tyrant to ruin everyone's day, after all.

Originally Posted by Pudu

Because the government is really of the people, by the people, for the people, doesn't mean they are equivalent in terms of authority and responsibility. If that's true, I'm going to start collecting taxes . I have a keen interest in physics, chemistry and biology. The bill of rights doesn't explicity discuss my rights with regards to home chemistry and yet I have no right to mix up a batch of ricin in my kitchen no matter how responsible and careful I am.

Honestly, I don't know the legalities of ricin production other than it's supposedly extremely dangerous to produce, is a derivative of castor beans, and is something I'll oblige myself never to encounter if possible. I also have a questionable opinion about some of the taxes here. I understand things need to be paid for, but I'm not positive I agree completely with how everything is undertaken. The supposedly temporary income tax, for instance...doesn't look so temporary now. It just seems to me that every time the government (any government, in fact) encroaches on the people for whatever reason with taxes, restrictions, etc. it is loathe to remove those encroachments.

Originally Posted by Pudu

This is a chicken-egg problem. Cities implement stricter gun laws usually to address a pre-existing problem with gun crimes. One could ask the question - how much worse would the problem be without strict gun laws?

Perhaps. I would also point out, however, that the crime rate has typically dropped in areas where firearms restrictions were released. I'm not saying it is solely because firearms are a deterrent(they are) but that also, when things are more restricted, legitimate safety training, etc. is non-existent, not to mention the only users of firearms in this situation are typically the criminal element, those same people that gamers pretend to be on their playstations. Not a good way to learn the proper use of firearms,IMHO. I think it is a multifaceted issue in this regard.

Originally Posted by Pudu

Switzerland has mandatory military service, and annual mandatory refresher courses. Perhaps that every male is taught to handle weapons with respect and responsibility (I'm making an assumption that this a common feature of most modern armed forces) has an impact of attitude and wisdom regarding handling of weapons.

This is a good point. I grew up in a firearm friendly state, and when I reached the eighth grade, we were all given a course on firearms and hunter safety. It was an eye opener for everyone, I think, who hadn't handled firearms previously. I think it was sponsored by the NRA, still, the important stuff-safety-was covered before anyone even touched a firearm in the classroom. Now, I imagine it is much more difficult to offer such courses. I received firearms safety training in the military also, but it was basically the same, and could be taught in a very short session or two. I do feel that such training should be mandatory (or a test) prior to purchasing a firearm. This would not restrict anyone, but simply require them to learn firearms safety rules.

Originally Posted by Pudu

If you want to compare to other nations, the impact of culture is usually overlooked and in my opinion far from insignificant. Some cultures are simply more law abiding than others. And acceptable conflict resolution varies hugely from culture to culture. My interpretation of this is that wide spread gun ownership will cause more issues in some cultures than others.

Good point. I feel that while our culture is generally law abiding, there is a huge push from game manufacturers, Hollywood, etc. showing the criminal element as the underdog, or as "cool" and not only that, depicts law enforcement in a negative light (generally). It is a bad combination, IMHO. I don't feel that firearms ownership is the problem here, so much as what is being streamed to our television sets, or at least, the backwards roles it places people in. There was a time when someone needed help or directions etc. a police officer was the first person to ask. Now many look on the police with mistrust. Not saying that this is always misguided, but it is a sad commentary, for sure.

Originally Posted by Pudu

I believe the reference was to the NRA convention that was held in Denver very shortly after the Columbine tragedy. The NRA scaled back, but refused to reschedule the event or change venue when asked to do so.

Perhaps this also had to do with scheduling issues with the venue, etc. I mostly took issue with the suggestion people were going to an NRA convention for the opportunity to taunt victims families, which, while I admit I was not there, sounds not only false, but is completely horrible. If individuals did such a thing, it was not something the NRA supported, for sure. At least I didn't get the memo. Regardless it is a pretty horrible thing if people did that. I simply do not believe it did. Now, if by "grieving family members" one really means anti-gun protesters, there is always back and forth taunting between these groups, and just because protesters happen to be in Colorado does not make them family members. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Pudu

You are comparing apples to oranges to some extent. Hammers and cars are designed to transport people and put nails into lumber. Firearms are designed to kill and injure, or threaten to do so. Yes, they are ubiquitously used for target practise and recreation, but to argue that it was for this purpose that firearms have been developed into such efficient tools is disingenuous.

Perhaps I could have stated my point better, I have not claimed that firearms are not dangerous, nor that they are not designed to kill (well, a lot of them anyway-some are more specifically for other purposes). My feeling is that an armed populace is specifically acknowledged by our constitution, there is no law against a citizen having lethal means to protect him or herself, or for him or her to practice with that weapon (keep AND bear...as I see it, anyway). I would agree with mandatory safety training or a basic firearms safety test, but registration is how they begin putting citizens on "lists", always initially "for our own good". I feel that when a crime is committed, it is the responsibility of the person committing the crime, and not everything else.

Originally Posted by Pudu

It is a complex issue and I think statements like "guns = bad" and "the founding fathers guaranteed that we can own any weapon we want" do nothing to solve or even lessen the very real problem of gun crime.

Actually I agree. I don't believe firearms ownership has anything at all to do with the problem. I think much more it has to do with the cultural influences above, e.g. Hollywood. When I grew up, at 4 years old I already knew that a firearm was "Always loaded" ( a good safety mantra btw) and "Never to point it at anything that you were not willing to shoot and perhaps kill" which, at 4, meant pretty much everything, unless the adults brought out the firearm and allowed me to join them. Now, every 8 year old knows firearms (from TV mostly ) as evil things, possessed only by gang-bangers, having no use but for murdering innocents. This is then glorified on the big screen as well. They also practice doing just that with a few of the popular games out these days. I believe this is wrong and produces a much more negative effect than a firearm by itself, which can not influence its owner one way or another.

Originally Posted by Bruno

The problem with the 2nd amendement is that it is now used in debates, in a way which was never foreseen by the founders.
A gun in that day was a front loading musket. They would never have imagined that things like M60's or Gatling guns would exist one day.

I believe they knew such things would happen, the earliest multi-shot weapons preceded our revolution by centuries, if only in experimental weapons, not to mention, shot typically used at the time from mortars, cannon, etc. and perhaps rockets, would sicken the stomachs of some today when considered for too long. Rather than control the effectiveness of the weapons used by the citizenry, I feel they felt a need to ensure that no matter how powerful the government became (which they hoped to avoid, incidentally) the people would be well armed enough to not only counter it, but would be called upon if our own soil was invaded from without. Hence laws which define "militia" very broadly to include just about every able bodied American male.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Why would a private citizen own one of these? for NOT shooting other people?
The only times such a weapon would be used is in the hypothetical situation of an open revolt against the government (which will never happen) or if the owner snaps and goes on a killing spree.

Why distrust the people with the means to kill? The government has it, after all- and while the open revolt idea seems far-fetched, perhaps because the difference has already become great through various gun control laws, it is not impossible. Just as in the case of 1930's Germany, it will not be the military which attacks the citizens, as they are loyal to their country, as is the U.S. Military loyal to our country. It would likely be a new government entity loyal to it not the citizens, which people would have to revolt against, should such come to pass. It isn't the army that comes after citizens, after all.

Originally Posted by Bruno

And if you want M60, why not rocket launchers? Apache helicopters? Anti aircraft guns? Nuclear weapons? Where would you draw the line?

I feel if one wants an Apache helicopter, good for him, and good luck buying the fuel for the thing. People do own them, as well as Anti-Aircraft guns. WRT Nuclear weapons, well, in principle I believe a citizen should be allowed to own anything a soldier owns. Soldiers do not own Nuclear weapons, and the military cannot even detonate them. The president does that. IF a citizen wishes to own a nuclear weapon, he only need get himself elected

Originally Posted by Bruno

Such weapons have 0 practical purpose for defense scenarios, so there is no reason for owning them. Their only purpose is military, so it makes sense that only the military has them.

I disagree with you for exactly the same reason you give, so its a point of view thing, perhaps. I feel the citizenry should be allowed to own things, if ONLY because government forces have them. A law abiding citizen, mutually trusted by a non-tyrannical government, is no threat regardless of what he chooses to adorn his gun rack/safe/locker etc. with.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

This might be a good point if you had bothered to read back for my position on firearm ownership. I've been an owner of firearms since birth and strongly support responsible ownership. What upsets me is incompetent (and worse) people pissing away my rights. I worry less about gun control advocates than I do about people who are supposedly on my side.

Perhaps I misread you then, and apologies. I agree with this statement, at any rate. Every time someone does something stupid with a firearm (regardless of whether he had a legal right to it in the first place, e.g. convicted felons, who lose their 2nd Amendment rights in many cases) it affects the rest of us who do obey the laws, and while we may have multiple firearms, would not dream of using any of them for murder or other nefarious purposes. Unfortunately many forget that new laws only affect those who obey them in the first place.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I used to be a member. Dropped my membership in disgust.

Really? When did this happen? Just curious. I've been a member on and off several times. Usually when my membership dropped it was simply because I'd already spent dues money on something else. This last membership was a gift from my father, who is a lifetime member. Strange, he never seemed to like guns when I was younger, but they provide him much enjoyment now.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

Good point. Claw hammers probably aren't used often enough to draw much attention, but cars are a problem. And we don't need "bills in Congress the next day..." because the laws exist. Cars are dangerous and can't even be taken on the road unless they're registered, which they need to be on an average of every two years. To be registered, they must be insured up the whoop, and inspected for mechanical function and safety equipment, which must be present.

Then, in order to drive the car, you must pass a written test, a practical test, a vision test, and a background check. You must be recertified every few years. And your driving privileges can be revoked for a variety of reasons.

In fact, the car analogy is as good an argument for gun registration as I've ever heard. Please stop using it.

While I see your point, I still believe it is an excellent analogy. The car analogy is used because cars, misused or not, have killed far more people than firearms in this country, and they are already registered, the government already controls who does and does not (in theory, anyway) drive one, and yet, they are one of the leading killers. There is no right, constitutionally or otherwise, to own a car. Not so arms. Regardless, there are some who drive illegally, or do stupid things. No government registration laws (or any other laws, for that matter,) made any difference.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

I don't know if I should worry about you. Presumably your government employment ensures that you're reasonably sane. On the other hand, the glee with which you describe pumping 4000 round through my window gives me pause. Should I worry?

Do not read into something that which I did not write. Nowhere did I mention anything about being "gleeful". It was just making a point, that we trust government forces (composed of citizens, incidentally) with tremendous firepower, and yet you were balking over a non-government citizen having the right to 30 round magazines, or some such. If one wants to make the claim that simply by its appearance or magazine capacity that one weapon should remain out of the peoples' hands, while another,perhaps to you more aesthetic weapon should not-then the battle is already lost, we may as well declare Pres. Bush (or Obama or whoever you choose) to be your king. Turn in your firearms, and prepare to turn in your paycheck and begin plowing or whatever, all "for the common good". A 30 round magazine does not make the owner of such a weapon a murderer or more likely to commit murder any more than having a large fuel tank on your car makes you want to drive it a lot more.

Originally Posted by Nord Jim

But when some imbecile walks into McDonalds to take out his frustrations with his mother, I'd just as soon he had to reload once in a while.

j

Imbeciles in McDonalds not withstanding, how often were such people the legal owners of a firearm in the first place? Convicted felons? Non-citizens? Someone who perhaps stole another's firearm? Laws and restrictions didn't help at all. The difference between this logic and my own, is that while this logic assumes the patrons of the McDonalds would cower while the person reloads, my logic would have him overpowered or killed before he had a chance to get to the reloading part. Again, if I've misrepresented you in some way that you find offensive, I apologize. I simply disagree with some of your statements is all. Just a difference of opinions, at this point.

John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

I simply disagree with some of your statements is all. Just a difference of opinions, at this point.

John P.

We probably disagree far less than you seem to believe. As I said, I support responsible ownership of firearms. I just don't think some things are worth fighting over. My father always asked me, when I got on my high horse to go tilt some windmill or other, "Is that the hill you want to die on?" Fighting for some of this stuff just convinces a skeptical public that we're whackos.

I mean, why do we need cop-killers? What's the point? Why plastic handguns? Who do you know who'd buy one?

We're constantly drawing lines in the sand and spitting in the eyes of the majority of Americans. Not surprisingly, they simply shrug and mutter something about us being a bunch of gun-nut whack jobs. Then they call their Congressmen. Trouble is, there are more of them than there are of us.

I know that lots of people believe that every advance by gun control advocates is ground permanently lost, but that's obviously not true. The latest court decision proves once again that these things ebb and flow. And there are things we can do to get them to flow in our direction more often.

One last time: Our problem is one of perception. Most Americans disagree with us, and many are willing to take away our rights for their comfort. That's scary. Unless you're willing to abolish democracy, we need to convince them, not fight them.

Peace, brother. Don't forget your windage.

j

Great post John!!!!

There is only one point I didn't like:

Originally Posted by JohnP

I do feel that such training should be mandatory (or a test) prior to purchasing a firearm. This would not restrict anyone, but simply require them to learn firearms safety rules.

Not that I don't think training is a good thing or that requiring it would be wrong. I just take issue with requiring it because Then the government would be in charge of who could own a gun, either by limiting the number of courses allowed to be taught, or by charging astronomical costs for them.

For example: in my home state our CPL law had to be revised almost immediately after its implementation in order to stop some jurisdictions from charging an astronomical "processing fee" to the applicants with the sole purpose of discouraging people from being able to apply.