Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

The gun control measures that I'd take are to legislate the following measures:
1) Every gun(*) owner gets a grace period of let's say a year to submit his gun to the police. No buyback. They become ILLEGAL.
2) After that grace period, the gun registries are searched and uncollected guns are collected by police officers coming to the door.
3) Then, handgun posession other than working pieces for military personnel and LEOs becomes punishable by a MINIMUM of a couple of years in prison. That's for mere posession. And if the handgun is used in the commission of a crime like robbery or assault, additional 10 years should be tacked onto the sentence.

(*)Again, let me reiterate that hunting rifles should be permitted but step 3 would apply in case one was used in the commission of a crime.

I don't see why you need step 1 and 2. First of all, though I hate to make this argument, that's pretty much what the Nazi's did, and we saw how well that went. It also ignores that many states don't require firearms to be registered, and many people oppose registration for just that reason. Second, all you are doing is punishing /law abiding/ citizens. It is my opinion that everyone who meets the legal qualifications (age, no criminal record, no history of psychiatric illness or domestic abuse) should be permitted to own a firearm. To quote a bumper sticker cliche, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

Regardless of the utility of having an armed civilian population (and I think that there are many strong arguments in favor of that), you're depriving people of a constitutionally protected right for no reason other than some general feeling that "guns are bad." Legally owned guns are not the ones used in crimes. Legal gunowners don't go out and commit gun crimes. 38 states have "shall issue" concealed weapon permit laws, and there haven't been any cases of the sort of "wild west" shootouts you mention happening. In fact, there weren't any of those sorts of shootouts /in/ the wild west as far as we know. There are statistics on boths sides, including the ones that indicate that crime goes down markedly in areas where the population is armed. And what about people who enjoy target shooting, IPSIC, or cowboy action, or any of the wide variety of shooting sports we have? Because someone might theoretically misuse a gun, their rights are cast aside?

I would have more sympathy if you suggested that gun owners should have to complete a safety course, or something of that nature in order to get a carry license, or even a purchase permit.

Sure, you can trust the police and the army to protect you. I think that any police officer would tell you that they may or may not make it in time to save you if you're the victim of a home invasion or an armed robbery. You have every right to protect yourself and your family by the use of force.

I'm interested what people think of the ASK(Asking Saves Kids) campaign. Below is a link. The idea is pretty simple: before you send your kids to someone else's house, ask them if they have a gun. If they don't then you don't have to worry about junior finding a gun and doing something stupid. If they do have a gun, then you have to decide if it's safe. If the people are responsible and have a gun safe and ammunition stored elsewhere then you're probably ok. It's your call. Personally I think it's pretty smart. They don't say people shouldn't have guns, and they don't tell YOU what to do, rather they tell you what someone else should do. What are your thoughts?

http://www.paxusa.org/ask/index.html

I rememer when a law was passed in WV
allowing people to carry a concealed
weapon. The Charleston Gazette, a
very left leaning daily newspaper was
outraged. Their editorial writers were
foaming at the mouth, predicting D Day
type carnage on a regular basis.

There was no increase in the murder rate.
What gun related murders we do have are
generally drug related.

Why should I loose my right to own a gun
because of these worthless bastards.

Freemen own guns. Slaves and subjects do not.


Terry

Let me just say at the outset that statistics are of no use in this debate, even though they are trotted out with monotonous regularity by both sides. There's too many (unknown) confounding factors involved. Just like the farcical "causality" between smoking and lung cancer, sample data can never prove anything. And that's why these debates are never resolved - no-one can ever get any hard evidence that completely favours their position.

So these things always end up:

10 Affirmative states their case;
20 Negative states their case;
30 goto 10;

Bill's original post is correct - these things start civil, but it only takes a few iterations before both sides realise neither will budge, frustration sets in, and away we go.

James.

Sec162, excellent.

Bill, you are correct.

Imagine waking up at 2am coz you heard a noise. You walk out of your room, sleepy eyed and probably buck naked to find two guys armed with nasty objects, wide awake. Your chances are zero.
I've been well trained to defend myself, I would use speed and agression but I would still go down more than likely. If they had guns I would be toast even quicker.

Now if I had a gun, the moment my hand closes on the butt I'm wide awake and in "standyby" mode.
I walk out of my room buck naked and see two armed intruders. More than likely the've used their guns but never been trained, at 20ft I can double tap both before the first has hit the floor.
Why didn't I challenge them..you've gotta be kidding.

If I lived in a country where I could legally own a gun at home, carry etc..I would.

Gary

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

I don't trust humans in general. As a race we have 2 bad tendencies:
1) To let our emotions override our better judgement.
2) To do something just because we can -- like get a gun, fire it, fire it AT someone.
I'm not saying that EVERYONE would behave like that. However if more people have guns, more would use them.
Now some of you have this nice little utopian dream of everyone being polite to each other just because everyone carries guns. What would actually happen is that more verbal conflicts and fist-fights would erupt into shooting matches.

If you knew that someone was carying a gun wouldn't you be polite to them, and not engage in "verbal conflicts or fistfights"?

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

Are gangbangers polite with each other just because most of them are armed?

Actually yes. most gangbanger shootings happen from behind or from the car or in another way in wich the shooter can not be shot by the shootee, when they meet face to face the have developed body language and protocals for safely dealing with each other so no-one gets killed.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

The gun control measures that I'd take are to legislate the following measures:
1) Every gun(*) owner gets a grace period of let's say a year to submit his gun to the police. No buyback. They become ILLEGAL.

A violation of the second, fourth and fifth amendments.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

2) After that grace period, the gun registries are searched and uncollected guns are collected by police officers coming to the door.

fortunatly there are few registries.

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

3) Then, handgun posession other than working pieces for military personnel and LEOs becomes punishable by a MINIMUM of a couple of years in prison. That's for mere posession. And if the handgun is used in the commission of a crime like robbery or assault, additional 10 years should be tacked onto the sentence.

since you state clearly two tendancies of humans at the begining of this post, why would you think LEO's and the military are imune from these flaws

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

(*)Again, let me reiterate that hunting rifles should be permitted but step 3 would apply in case one was used in the commission of a crime.

Whay are you permitting hunting rifles? I remember back in the early nintys when our local PD was pushing for funding to upgrade to semi-automatics because they were "outgunned" by the criminal element. that year the only fataly wounded officer was shot with a single shot flintlock pistol circa 1830. besids you can hunt with a bow

You also mentioned that stabbing is les dangerous than getting shot. this is also untrue stabbings are far more likly to be fatal than gunshot wounds, look up the stats.

getting rid of guns would not make anything safer in any case. in 1995 there was a stabbing incident in japan (no-guns) where a crazy walked through a subway station and stabbed 42 people before he was noticed and apprehended.

Originally Posted by garythepenman

Sec162, excellent.
...
If I lived in a country where I could legally own a gun at home, carry etc..I would.

Gary

You would or you'd have to? I suspect the latter.

James.

Just 2 cents:

Firestart is taking the the typical approach of the liberals in this country - wishful thinking and an unachievable vision of utopia. Such as:

1) We can just outlaw guns and everything will be fine - sorry, but it ain't gonna happen - guns are made all over the world and can easily be smuggled in. Also, take away the guns and there are plenty of other deadly weapons - i.e. box cutters on 9/11.

2) I can just defend himself with karate while waiting for the police. Sorry, your mother can't.

3) Gun Registries - how much manpower and how many dollars do you have to make this happen? Why am I going to voluntarily register my guns? Are you going to get court warrants to search every house in the country looking for unregistered guns?



Reality:

It was proven serveral years ago in a Supreme Court case that the police exist to protect society, not the individual members of the society. We are on our own for self-defense.

In England, prior to guns being outlawed, most home robberies were commited when the family was away. Since guns have been outlawed, most robberies now occur when the family is home (unarmed and no threat to the criminal) and the incidence of the family being hurt or killed has gone up.

Several years ago, a community in Georgia passed a law REQUIRING home owners to have a gun. The crime rate in that community dropped drastically because the criminals now found it safer to 'shop' elsewhere and not risk facing an armed victim.

In 1988 in Chicago, more people were killed with baseball bats than with rifles.

Firestart says that having everyone armed won't reduce crime - maybe not, but having all law-abiding citizens unarmed will definitely INCREASE crime and tragedy.

He also says that he is afraid of criminals - then why not give himself every advantage if he ever has to face one?

Face it, wishful thinking and best intentions aren't going to get rid of guns or protect people. We are each responsible for making our own decisions about how to manage our lives and look out for the welfare of our families. I just want to keep the right to make that decision.

Tom

It's always been my opinion that it's not so much the guns that kill people, but those pesky little bullets that come barreling out of them. I agree, everyone SHOULD be able to own guns, but bullets? No.

But honestly, As for Prison, for using a gun (with ill-gotten buttets since they'd be illegal)? Prison, with little to no luxuries. No TV, No games, No leasure! IT'S PRISON. IF you don't like it, you should have thought of that before! And MAYBE, you'd think twice if you ever got out!

Ah well. I've always been of the opinion that the public should be able to own rifles and shotguns. There is no need for the public to own anything more, for any reason. AND do not make the bullets for handguns availible to the public.

BUT, that's just me.........

C utz

Whether having guns easily and widely available makes us safer or less safe is an interesting question. Most of us have strong opinions on it right out of the gate, but to really think about it in a non-partisan we’d have to know some gun death statistics: what percentage represents random crime against law-abiding citizens, what percentage gang warfare or drug-related killings, what percentage self-defense on the part of law-abiding citizens, and what percentage the deadly escalation of ordinary conflicts between ordinary people with no criminal past (fights between spouses, family, neighbors, etc.). I’d be curious to hear some of these statistics. Maybe those of you in law enforcement know them?

As for the 2nd amendment to the constitution, that had nothing to do with the rights of hunters, target-shooters, or sportsmen, and very little if anything to do with what we now mean by self-defense (i.e. against criminals). It had to do with a dispute between the Federalists, who feared mob rule and wanted a strong national army to have a monopoly on force, and the anti-Federalists, who feared state oppression and thought a people’s militia would keep that in check. The 2nd amendment was the resulting compromise, specifying that the people would have the right to “keep and bear arms” and hence form a militia, but that militia would be “well-regulated” by the state.

Now that state “arms” means F16s, Apache helicopters, and nuclear weapons, only a fantasist would claim that his Smith & Wesson is an effective check against potential state oppression. And a second amendment literalist would have to argue that citizen militias have the right to keep private tanks, rocket launchers and so on. Ilija’s right that the 2nd amendment – in its literal sense at least – is obsolete. (Though I guess you could say that the heroes who took down United 93 had formed an ad-hoc militia of sorts…)

It is not obsolete, though, in the sense that it can be interpreted to guarantee a civilian framework for our military. And to guarantee that decisions about national self-defense and the use of force ultimately lie with the people.

I’m relatively new here and I like everybody so I sure hope I haven’t offended anyone.