Talk About Marriage banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
3021 - 3040 of 7438 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,965 Posts
Here's the real gun insanity in the USA. The way guns are regulated is insane. The picture is accurate. Each category has a whole litany of laws and regulations which must be followed by manufacturers, sellers, buyers, and possessors. The restrictions vary by category. Make one tiny error and you are a felon.

Yet in no way does any of this deter, prevent, stop, or solve any crime. In no way does it prevent any accident. It just makes many hoops for the law abiding to jump through with the threat of jail for a mistake. Yet no criminal has any regard whatsoever for these laws.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,965 Posts
How about instead of thinking about Germany and Russia in the early 20th century or Uganda or Cambodia later on, we look at England, Canada, Japan, etc. right now. Countries like us who happen to have harsher resitictions and oh, fancy that, less gun related crime?

How about we look at the overall rates of crimes rather than at gun crimes? Do you propose that absent guns there would be no crimes? Do you propose that criminals would stop being criminals if they only didn't have a gun?

If the problem is the criminal and not the tool he selects, then looking at overall crime rates is what matters.

Because Switzerland has a lot of guns, including fully automatic miltary weapons, kept in homes yet they have a very low crime rate. Probably something to do with their culture. But Britain with very low lawful gun ownership rates has a much higher violent crime rate.

Hmm.

And Japan, let's look at them. There is virtually no private ownership of guns. They have a very low violent crime rate, yet a high suicide rate of 20.7 per 100,000 population compared to the USA's suicide rate of 12.5 per 100,000.

Greenland's suicide rate is 45 per 100,000! And they have your European style gun control.

Perhaps gun ownership by law abiding citizens has zero to do with crime rates or with suicide rates? Yup, as it turns out crime and suicide are social problems not tool availability problems.

Accidents? Do you really want to go there? Have you read this thread?

What accident rate with an object is not tolerable to you and thus warrants severe restrictions or banning of the object? How many child deaths warrants severe restrictions or banning?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,965 Posts
I really don't give a sh*t if someone wants to keep a gun, I just don't understand the obsession at all. Why do you need so many different kinds of guns? Why do you need to carry them around with you? Why do you need to buy cute little pink rifles for your kids? (One of my 7-year-olds' friends has one of these. It freaks me right out.) Why are the lightest of proposed restrictions still considered to be too harsh? WHAT are people so afraid of, and why?

When does it start? What triggers it? Is it parental influence? Or the area you live in? It's so fascinating/horrifying to me.
Need has nothing to do with a right. Do you NEED to vote? To go to church, to stand on a street corner protesting something? Do you NEED that nice car, nice house, cell phone? Do you NEED to have more income than supplies your basic feeding and housing? Do you NEED more than one guitar, car, tv, or screwdriver?

The 2A protects every person's RIGHT to choose to possess arms. It does not require a person to own or carry arms. It simply prohibits the government from in any way encroaching upon a person's right to choose if, how, and when to be armed.

I choose to carry a gun because a cop is too heavy. Ask the victim of a violent crime if they wish they had been armed. Ask one of the millions of people who have successfully defended themselves and/or their family with a firearm.

If a parent wants to buy a pink rifle for his daughter, it is his business not mine. The best way to teach gun safety to children is to take them shooting. Children should use child sized firearms for safety reasons. Children who are taught shooting sports are less likely to get into all manner of trouble as teens or adults.

Restrictions are abhorrent because they violate the Constitution, because they only ever have any effect on law abiding citizens (and thus have zero ability to improve public safety), and because there are many who want to outright ban guns who employ the boil-the-frog strategy. Every time gun owners give in (or are forced to bow to) any restriction, the gun ban crowd immediately declare it was not enough and push for yet another restriction.

Obsession? No more so than the bicycle nut, computer nut, car nut, gardening nut, beach nut, or art nut. While your state is communist when it comes to guns, you should go shooting sometime. You'll find it a challenge. As you learn about guns you'll find there is great variety in how they are designed and used. If you get into reloading ammunition you'll see there is an art and a science to getting the best accuracy out of a gun/ammo combination. Explore buying, owning, transporting, or carrying a firearm (or ammunition) where you live, and then start looking at news stories of crime to see how those restrictions fit in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
So, the purpose of being armed is to resist tyranny and invasion? In that case you need weapons of greater power than those allowed by law.
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James *******, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James *******, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,416 Posts
Greater evils such as?

I have seen this argument before, but it seems to me that the historical events being cited aren't really relevant. We're a first world country in 2015. How about instead of thinking about Germany and Russia in the early 20th century or Uganda or Cambodia later on, we look at England, Canada, Japan, etc. right now. Countries like us who happen to have harsher resitictions and oh, fancy that, less gun related crime? Less accidental shootings? Practically no mass shootings? When was the last time you heard about a kid coming into school with a gun and killing a bunch their peers in any other western country?

See, this is what I'm curious about. The "everybody's out to get me" mentality. When does this start? What triggered this for you?
I wonder how old you are? Ever heard the saying, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"?

I don't walk around thinking everyone's out to get me. But I've been mugged and robbed in the past. Have you? There's another saying, "one mugging will change a liberal into a conservative." I grew up in cowboy country, so I didn't get changed. I just didn't happen to have a gun when I was mugged.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,416 Posts
I understand the 2nd Amendment, though it was written at a time where it took a minute to fire a bullet, as opposed to today, where a person could shoot 100 rounds in the same amount of time.

I wouldn't go so far as to say take away the guns entirely, at least not yet, though I do feel that we should have more strict gun laws. Limit the rounds in a cartridge, do regular background checks, and we may see a difference in how many people are harmed with the weapons.
A "round" is a cartridge, so I'm not sure your argument is based on knowledge of guns.

I could wait a minute to shoot my second round. I might wait a lifetime, if my first shot is accurate. Or maybe my first round comes from 6 barrels at once. I could carry five one-shot weapons with me.

It's that kind of linear thinking that doesn't play in the real world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,965 Posts
How about this for gun control? A felony conviction not only results in permanent loss of 2A rights, but also of 4A rights. The police could at any time, without notice or warrant, search the home, vehicle, belongings, or body of any person with a felony conviction.

This would eliminate the need to attempt to control felon access to firearms using indirect means such as controlling the access of law abiding citizens to weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,965 Posts
Really? How does that work? Criminals can't steal or import guns? Criminals can't use other tools? Criminals give up their life of crime when it is more difficult to obtain a gun?

How long after stringent restrictions are put on lawful handgun ownership will it result in fewer criminals possessing guns? How many fewer violent crimes will it result in?

There is no indication, no study, no logic, to support a reduction in lawful handgun ownership will reduce violent criminal activity. But there is plenty of evidence to show it would create millions of new victims of violent crimes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,965 Posts
This is why gun control is evil. The rapist could have used any weapon, even just greater strength, to commit his multiple violent crimes. A knife would have worked. Yet the victim, a law abiding citizen who jumped through the hoops to get a concealed weapon license, obeyed the gun control law by not carrying her defensive handgun on a college campus.

Yup, in this case a handgun restriction caused the crime to happen. The criminal ignored the law, as criminals do, which is what makes them criminals.

Counterpoint: A rape survivor argues why we need guns on campus | MSNBC

Just the other day, I was asked “Why do you need a firearm on campus? What’s so threatening about becoming educated?” Here’s my answer: Eight years ago, during my junior year at the University of Nevada-Reno, I was raped in the parking garage only feet away from the campus police office.

As this stranger raped me while holding a pistol to my temple, I could see the police cruisers parked for the night, and I knew no one was coming to help me. Eventually the man who raped me, James Biela, was caught. He was tried and convicted for not only raping me at gun point in a gun-free zone, but also raping two other women and murdering Brianna Denison. So, I ask, “How does rendering me defenseless protect you against a violent crime?”

At the time of my attack, I had obtained my Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit for the personal choice of not wanting to be a defenseless target. In Nevada, permit holders are not allowed to carry firearms on campuses. As a law-abiding citizen, I left my firearm at home, which means that the law that is meant to ensure my safety only guaranteed the criminal an unmatched victim.

I still wonder what would have been different if I’d been carrying my weapon that night. But here’s the truth: Had I been carrying my firearm, I would have been able to stop the attack. Not only that, but two other rapes would have been prevented and three young lives would have been saved, including my own.

Any survivor of rape can understand that the young woman I was walking into the parking garage that night was not the same woman who left. My life has never been the same after my attack. Legalized campus carry would have saved my family, who happens to be the collateral damage in my story, and me a great deal of untold torment.

My case is a perfect example that despite law enforcement’s best efforts to ensure our safety, they are unable to be everywhere at once. All I wanted was a chance to effectively defend myself. The choice to participate in one’s own defense should be left to the individual. That choice should not be mandated by the government. As a law-abiding citizen, I should not have to hand over my safety to a third party. Laws that prohibit campus carry turn women like me into victims by stripping away our Second Amendment rights.

Unfortunately, legislators opposed to campus carry are more intimidated by law-abiding citizens like me sitting in class with a legal firearm, than the rapist waiting for me in the parking garage. Most people are unaware that one in four women will be raped while attending college and one-third of them occur on the campus they attend.

Currently, seven states allow campus carry. Not a single one of those states has seen an increase in crimes committed with firearms. In fact, there has been a decrease in crimes committed on campus property. Still, law-abiding citizens are barred from exercising this fundamental freedom on our publicly funded university campuses, leaving them defenseless against gun-wielding criminals who disregard the laws.

The laws need to change so that those who have a valid concealed carry permit can lawfully bring their firearms onto college campuses, just as they do elsewhere in their daily lives. I know from my personal experience that threats to personal safety don’t magically disappear in declared “safe-zones.”

Some who oppose campus carry cite research showing that alcohol is involved in most sexual assaults, and that alcohol leads to impaired judgment about gun use. The solution to that is focusing on reducing underage drinking, not denying Second Amendment rights.

Perhaps the weakest argument against campus carry was from a professor at Florida’s Eckerd College, who said that “proponents will argue that allowing concealed carry will protect female students from sexual assault. I will point out the obvious; you will be arming the assailants, too.” That statement ignores the fact that assailants are already armed, and there is nothing in place to keep them from coming onto our campuses.

My attacker was armed, and as a law-abiding citizen I had more to lose than he did that night. If I’d had my firearm I would have faced expulsion from school, losing my permit and possibly jail time. My attacker was not a student nor did he have a CCW permit.

I believe in empowering women with the choice to protect their bodies. Law-abiding concealed carry permit holders should not be denied their fundamental, constitutional right to protect themselves on college campuses.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,209 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,034
What would you change in this "evil" gun control law?

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,965 Posts
What would you change in this "evil" gun control law?
Nothing much. That law is aimed only at convicted criminals and certain mentally ill people. It does not apply to law abiding people.

Virtually every other gun control law is aimed only at law abiding citizens. Every other gun control law restricts the type of weapon, characteristics of the weapon, the ammunition, how the gun is purchased, stored, transported, carried, and where it may be possessed or carried.

Can you explain to the woman in the article I quoted above how the law against carrying guns on campus makes sense? Can you explain how it reduces crime on campus? Can you explain how the law protected her? Can you explain to her why she is just collateral damage in a larger scheme which has demonstrable benefits?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,204 Posts
What would you change in this "evil" gun control law?
Until the U.S. government starts prosecuting unauthorized people who buy guns, I'd quit enforcing any restrictions on gun dealers. If we have a gun problem, it's due to the violence committed by people who obtain them. If the government isn't interested in prosecuting known violent felons who obtain or who try to obtain guns, I'm not interested in prosecuting otherwise innocent people who happen to be in the business of selling guns. I'm certainly not interested in sending the BATF after private individuals who dispose of their own personal property and who aren't engaged in interstate commerce.

Over 65% of all violent gun offenders have at least one felony conviction. Why aren't every one of them in federal prison for at least 10 years? Why do I keep arresting the same armed felons over and over? We have federal laws about felons having guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,209 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,038
10-Year-Old Accidentally Shoots Sister With Deputy Dad's Gun
AP
Posted: 02/14/2015 8:59 am EST Updated: 02/14/2015 8:59 am EST

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) — Police say the 10-year-old daughter of a California sheriff's lieutenant shot her younger sister with their father's gun in an apparent accident.

Fresno Police Lt. Joe Gomez says the 8-year-old girl was shot Friday in the torso and is in stable condition.

Gomez tells the Fresno Bee (10-year-old daughter of Madera County sheriff’s lieutenant shoots sister, 8, with father’s gun in Fresno | Local News | FresnoBee.com) that the girls' father was getting ready for work and had removed the magazine on his handgun before leaving it on a bed while he got ready for work.


He says the 10-year-old grabbed the gun and discharged a bullet left in the chamber hitting the younger girl.

Gomez says the lieutenant immediately called 911 for an ambulance and notified Fresno police.

Madera County Sheriff Jay Varney says the gun used was the employee's service weapon and that the officer would not be placed on paid administrative leave.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,209 Posts
Discussion Starter #3,039
Illegal aliens are not allowed to purchase weapons. How can a seller know who is illegal?

Can you explain to the woman in the article I quoted above how the law against carrying guns on campus makes sense? Can you explain how it reduces crime on campus? Can you explain how the law protected her? Can you explain to her why she is just collateral damage in a larger scheme which has demonstrable benefits?
Every woman who carries a handgun is potentially safer if she has weapon handy when encountering a rapist. The weapon may also reduce her safety since the gun she owns may end up in the hands of person who is a threat to her.
 
3021 - 3040 of 7438 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top