Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 10:48 AM
29 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,903 Year: 8,939/19,786 Month: 1,361/2,119 Week: 121/576 Day: 22/99 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 218 (551054)
03-20-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Flyer75
03-20-2010 2:01 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Catholic, I'll do some searching but I'm nearly 100% sure that you cannot legally purchase a fully auto gun. Clinton banned this in his sweeping gun ban legislation which made even getting semi auto weapons more difficult.
Now, pre ban it might have been easier and guns can certainly be "altered" to be automatic but there's no law in Missouri that would override the Federal ban.

I may be wrong on this but 99.9% (yes, it's going down) sure that you cannot purchase a fully auto weapon.

Well, it was about 10 years ago. The owner was all about being legal, and had to go through a lot of paperwork and checks to get his permit to buy them.

I'm sure he hasn't gotten rid of them, but you may be right that it is now illegal to buy more of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Flyer75, posted 03-20-2010 2:01 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 586 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 92 of 218 (551059)
03-20-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Theodoric
03-20-2010 2:06 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
I just read that "shady" looking website and I'm not I see where they are selling fulling automatic weapons. The only line where they even use the term is this: "All the guns on our "autoweapons" page are transferable, which makes them the more desirable guns for most of the population. This is why transferable guns are more expensive." They put the quotes around autoweapons.

You do realize they are selling C and R guns right? These are collectors guns, not modern day AR-15 and Mac-11's. Most of these guns are from World War I or II. Here's the link to wiki and what it says about these guns. You'll see there are many restrictions on these guns too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

There are certain auto guns that apply to this but again, they have to be over 50 years old and still must comply to federal law.

I'm telling you guys, from someone who has worked at gunshows, you can't just go purchase a fully auto AR-15.

Ok, EDIT:

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who knows all about this stuff....call him a gun nut. here's the deal, yes you can buy a fully auto gun but here's the conditions on it: the website you gave is for C/R guns only which have to be at least 50 years old and you can go read the conditions on them.

There is also a federal law passed in 1984 that banned the sale of automatic weapons. You can STILL purchase auto weapons made prior to that date with the FFL license you mentioned...but here's the thing and I'll give an example: a police department can purchase a fully auto MP-5 made before 1984 for around $1,500. For the average citizen, this price will be around $20K!!!! The average citizen can buy a fully auto MAC-10 or 11 made before 1984 for around 5K but apparently these are totally junk/garbage guns that they aren't even close to being worth that price. Supply and demand (plus rarity and the fact that you can't buy any auto guns made after 1984).

So, you are correct, my .10% won out and I was technically wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2010 2:06 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2010 3:05 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 3:10 PM Flyer75 has responded
 Message 98 by Apothecus, posted 03-20-2010 6:33 PM Flyer75 has responded

    
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1866
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 93 of 218 (551061)
03-20-2010 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Flyer75
03-20-2010 12:51 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
There's a million restrictions on magazine capacity (I, as a cop can carry more then the average citizen),

With the sunseting of the Assault Weapons Ban magazine capacities are no longer limited by federal law, some states, like California passed their own AWBs limiting magazine sizes.

No one can legally purchase a fully automatic weapon

As others have pointed out, if you have class 3 license, are in a state that allows ownership of class 3 weapons and have the buckets of cash you're good to go. If you can get a class 3 dealership license you can purchase new weapons for resale to police departments and the like.


It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Flyer75, posted 03-20-2010 12:51 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6264
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 94 of 218 (551063)
03-20-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Flyer75
03-20-2010 2:42 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Does this work for you?
quote:
t has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.

To become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation is conducted, checking for any criminal history or tendencies toward violence, and an application must be submitted to the BATF including two sets of fingerprints, a recent photo, a sworn affidavit that transfer of the NFA firearm is of "reasonable necessity," and that sale to and possession of the weapon by the applicant "would be consistent with public safety." The application form also requires the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction in the applicant's residence.

Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.


Souce

Still legal, just lots of hoops.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Flyer75, posted 03-20-2010 2:42 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 218 (551064)
03-20-2010 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Flyer75
03-20-2010 2:42 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
For the average citizen, this price will be around $20K!!!! The average citizen can buy a fully auto MAC-10 or 11 made before 1984 for around 5K but apparently these are totally junk/garbage guns that they aren't even close to being worth that price.

I dunno. The MAC-11 ranked pretty high on the Fun-O-Meter (and I wish I could find that old pic, 10 years ago when I had hair down to my elbows and wearing a tie-dyed T-shirt shotting a MAC-11 , it was priceless)

As for being "worth it".... My guys has, like, a $60,000 gun collection... whats another $5k

He even has a grenade launcher attachment, but he can't buy actual exploding grenades so all he has is smoke and parachute flares

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : appalin' spallin'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Flyer75, posted 03-20-2010 2:42 PM Flyer75 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Flyer75, posted 03-20-2010 3:46 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 586 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 96 of 218 (551067)
03-20-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2010 3:10 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
No, another 5K should not be a big deal for your buddy.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 3:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1265 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 97 of 218 (551068)
03-20-2010 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Flyer75
03-20-2010 12:51 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
You and I agree on this topic but the regulations you listed are in place already.

Than I have no gripe. I think what probably needs to be done is standardize the gun control system already in place in most states i.e. federal gun control standardization. This way there are no loopholes between state gun control laws.

The regulation is there, but does anyone think a criminal cares about these regulations?

I understand this aspect of the debate and agree.

There's not a gun out there (for the most part) that if used in a homicide, that can't be traced to where it originally came from or where and who originally purchased it.

Agreed. The purpose of gun control is to make armed crimes and crimes of passion involving guns more difficult whether it be a first offense or a continuous offense. Any intelligent person realizes that it is impossible to elimate both entirely. The purpose is just to make it as difficult as possible for the criminal and make it as easy as possible for law enforcement to trace these weapons. Unfortunately the average law abiding citizen is caught in the middle of this gun control dilemna.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Flyer75, posted 03-20-2010 12:51 PM Flyer75 has not yet responded

  
Apothecus
Member (Idle past 574 days)
Posts: 275
From: CA USA
Joined: 01-05-2010


(1)
Message 98 of 218 (551074)
03-20-2010 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Flyer75
03-20-2010 2:42 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
I'm telling you guys, from someone who has worked at gunshows, you can't just go purchase a fully auto AR-15.

My dad owns an AR-15 and although he hasn't done it, nor does he have plans to, he was talking awhile back about how you can drop something in the mechanism called a "safety sear" (?) which will turn your weapon into a full auto job. He said something about gun mags having ads in the back for them, worded so as to appear as a "safety kit". Now I don't know about the validity of any of this, but if true, then it seems if one tried hard enough, could retrofit a semi-auto AR-15 for pennies compared to buying one outright. Has anyone else heard of this?

I'd have to weigh in on the side of firearms absolutely being an acceptible form of self-defense in your home. I agree with DA's thoughts on gun control, because we do need some sort of deterrence when it comes to guns illegally getting into the wrong hands.

At the same time, I agree with Flyer75, and will say that should an intruder enter my home and exhibit any sort of hostile intent, he'll be leaving "tits up and feet first." Does this mean I "fantasize" about such an incident? Quite the opposite, in fact. If anything, I fear it intensely, as much as I fear my psychological well being should I be forced (yes, forced) to kill another human being. But I can guarantee you one thing: this personal psychological torment would be NOTHING -- I repeat, NOTHING compared to the torment I'd experience if inaction on my part contributed to the death of a family member. I understand this is my opinion, and wholly subjective, but what I don't understand is how anyone with family that they love could hold a different view.

You can call it paranoia, or even "home-vigilantism." I call it practical. I call it common sense.

Just my .02.

Have a good one.


"My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. J.B.S Haldane 1892-1964
This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Flyer75, posted 03-20-2010 2:42 PM Flyer75 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Flyer75, posted 03-20-2010 6:48 PM Apothecus has not yet responded
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-20-2010 10:02 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

    
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 586 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 99 of 218 (551075)
03-20-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Apothecus
03-20-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Apothecus,

Maybe the best post yet in this whole thread.

I agree with you and this betrays my conservative leanings: there needs to be gun regulation and there is and maybe even more. The last thing I want to do is pull somebody over and they pull out a fully auto AR-15. I'm left with my .40 cal Glock handgun on my waist, a shotgun locked up in the console, or MAY BE (in rare cases) a partner certified on an AR-15 (semi auto only). If it's just me, and the guy with the fully auto, heck even a semi auto, I'm a dead man, so yes, I'm for gun regulation.

Your dad is correct. I don't know how to do it, I have friends that could, but it is possible to tinker with guns and change the specs. It's totally illegal and can wind you up in a federal prison (if caught of course, especially in the commission of the crime).

And for the couple of you who think we're all bloodthirsty killers just waiting at our doorstep for someone to break in, think again. Even if I kill someone ON DUTY after being shot at, do you know the process one goes through after that. In EVERY case, it will go to the grand jury to determine if you committed a crime or not (thus the possibility of prison time). A cop WILL BE sued by the family, no matter what. In Ohio, one has two full years to sue a cop and they usually wait the full two years, then BAM! you find your self facing a 1984 Civil Rights Violation in Federal Court. So imagine what a citizen would go through by killing someone, especially an unarmed intruder in their home.

Fortunately, the Castle Doctrine has made this less stressful for citizens. The burden of proof has shifted off of the citizen onto the defense now.

Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Apothecus, posted 03-20-2010 6:33 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19869
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 100 of 218 (551080)
03-20-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Hyroglyphx
03-20-2010 9:02 AM


Re: The role of the militia and the role of the people in the constitution.
Please, Hyroglyphx, let's cut the hyperbole and false arguments from consequences.

Police carry firearms in the event they will need them. Well, it is the same for the citizen.

No it is not, for the simple reason that it is the duty of the police to seek out law breakers, and as such they are accorded extra protections not needed by the average citizen.

Police are also routinely trained to recognize when the use of force is necessary and when it is not - you and the average citizen are not, and thus you are much more likely to make a mistake.

Logically, if your argument were true, everyone would go around the neighborhood jogging in a bullet-proof vest, carrying SWAT rifles and looking for intruders. Ridiculous.

Honestly, RAZD, what would you do, offer them some tea and ask why they just broke in to your house? I wonder if you'd be so glib about it with small children in the house.

The reason pro-gun activists use scare tactics like this (logical fallacy of argument from consequences as well), is that they do not have a leg to stand on to show that guns actually provide more protection for kids in houses (for example) than not having guns.

The statistics show - conclusively in my opinion - that guns in houses leads to more deaths and permanent disabilities for kids in those houses than have been caused by outside disturbances.

You want to protect your house? Get a burglar alarm system -- it has the advantage of working while you are away as well as when you are home. There are solutions to the paranoid scenarios that don't require guns ... and being "fortuitous" to be there when needed.

Perhaps you've never seen one of their programs, but it is well-sourced. Nice character assassination because they're magicians, as if magicians couldn't possibly be cerebral.

Well you missed the part where they misdirected your attention to militia as the british army, while it was the American militia forces that drove out the well trained British military army units.

For your edification here is the definition of militia:

quote:
militia n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

[Latin mīlitia, warfare, military service, from mīles, mīlit-, soldier.]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.


Please note and acknowledge that this definition cannot be applied to the British forces, and thus that Penn & Teller were pulling a fast one on you.

You are right that the intent of the phrasing, based on numerous historical documents, was to have an army of citizens who, if they wanted to, trained as an army. The closest thing today that models the intent of the Framers is Switzerland. Average and ordinary citizens carrying guns. The only difference is they have conscription laws. You have to fight for Switzerland because of its small size. Not so, in the colonies.

Perhaps you should move to Switzerland then, and see how much you like their gun controls.

You also have the National Guard units throughout the states, volunteer units run by the states for the express purposes outlined in the constitution for a well trained militia. Do I need to repeat the clauses in the constitution that actually speak to this again?

There is a reason that National Guard units are called up during catastrophes (hurricanes and earthquakes, for example) but military units are not -- and it has to do with the provisions of the constitution to balance the power of the federal government against the powers of the states.

You are drawing false parallels. Nobody but you said that laws were to be enforced by people not in the militia. The issue is whether or not the intent was to preserve the right of individual's to bear arms for individual protection. John Adams goes out of his way to express that the militia, being properly trained, should enforce laws and order, but that even those not in the militia are entitled to defense.

So then don't misrepresent my position.

In other words, I'm not asking for armed people to run around with guns enforcing their own laws.

But you do want to act as judge jury and executioner if you find someone in your house. The constitution does not give you that authority, nor is that a right protected by the constitution.

If there are social reasons that cause people to feel they need to invade the houses of others, then the problem will be solved by social solutions, not by people with guns killing intruders - that only treats the symptoms, not the cause/s. Treat the cause/s and nobody would need guns for defense. Curiously, that is what civilization is about - making a society that benefits the citizens in as equitable a manner as possible.

I choose to choose civilization over paranoid anarchy when it comes to law enforcement.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-20-2010 9:02 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-20-2010 11:00 PM RAZD has responded

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 101 of 218 (551088)
03-20-2010 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Theodoric
03-20-2010 11:05 AM


Re: The role of the militia and the role of the people in the constitution.
Makes it very clear that. John Adams thought, though the people have a right to arms they can be and should be regulated.

No, it says that ordinary citizens shouldn't be enforcing laws and that the only reason they should keep and bear arms is for protection. Sounds a whole lot like the way we live now, doesn't it?

I think you are misreading Sam Adams completely.

Let's review it.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." -- Samuel Adams

As you can see he sets up the pretense, which is that the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe, and then he proceeds with his laundry list of offenses.

Kind of undermines your whole idea of getting your friends together and overthrowing the government doesn't it.

No, it doesn't since it literally has nothing do with it. And I didn't say we need to overthrow the government, I said in the event we ever need to, arms are necessary.

The reason why: "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

So there are to be NO limits on freedom of speech and press either?

Where did I or the author of the quote mention limitations?

Possess arms and be taught how to use them. I am all for that, but wouldn't you call that "gun control"? You willing to go to the point of legislating that everyone own arms?

No, I don't want to force people to have guns if they don't want them. I stand for this thing called "freedom," where people can choose if they want guns and choose not to have them.

Or do you just want to take the things in these quotes that support you and ignore the rest/

By all means present the dissenting opinions of the Framers.

I find it hilarious that you quote Tenche Cox and Melancton Smith. Had you heard of them before you did Wiki search?

Of course I have. I've recently been reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, which is actually what prompted me to start the thread.

Tax the hell out of people. That is congresses prerogative.

Federal Farmer's thoughts on taxation aren't relevant to the debate.

He was an anti-federalist. In other words he was against the ratification of the constitution. Isn't it strange that you quote a person that was against the very document you claim to defend.

No, it is not strange at all since the Anti-Federalists were not against the Constitution, they were against hastily forming the Constitution, especially in reference to specific provisions not emphasizing individual rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights themselves specifically addressed the Anti-Federalist concerns about individual rights being officially codified in the Constitution.

Also don't be deceived be the title. He was no farmer. He was a prominent merchant in New York. The letter were simply propaganda.

Well, no one really knows if he was in fact the Federal Farmer. He is suspected to be, but there are others too that some speculate might be the Federal Farmer. All the anti-federalists went under pseudonym.

Is the second amendment about guns or swords?

The second amendment is about arms.

Can you give us any other reason we should respect what he or Mr. Smith have to say? Were they prominent leaders or just people that said something you agree with?

Yes, they were prominent leaders, both being delegates to the Continental Congress. Coxe was also the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

It is good to see you can do a wiki search, now tell us why what these guys said should matter to us.

Because it proves the intent of what the Framers and the colonists wanted instead of relying only on ambiguous writing. Their private and professional writings help identify what exactly they wanted so that we don't have to play a guessing game.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2010 11:05 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 102 of 218 (551091)
03-20-2010 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by DevilsAdvocate
03-20-2010 11:15 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Firstly, let me say thank you for adhering to the spirit of the debate.

Registration of ALL purchased/traded guns (including those bought at gun shows and online)

Already a law

illegalize all fully-automatic guns accept manuals and sem-automatics to the general public (exceptions made for registered collectors w/ no criminal history - automatic weapons would be permanently disabled).

Already a law

Limit stockpiles of ammunition and weapons (which should be pretty easy if all legal guns are registered)

All right, and should this be federally mandated or up to the States to decide for themselves?

3 day cool off period before issuing.

Already a law. All states do this because this time is to conduct a proper and thorough NCIC and Interpol wants/warrants checks. Some states make the waiting period longer. The state I live in now has a 5-day waiting period, for instance.

All weapons will be serialized and registration will use a central federal database accessible by state and federal law enforcement personnel.

Already a law. Federal law requires that all guns made in, or imported into, the United States have a serial number to assist law enforcement in tracing a weapon.

Really how difficult can this be?

Apparently not that hard since all of these measures have already been implemented. The sole exception, I believe, is stockpiling weapons. There is no law that I know of, that says you can't own as many guns as you'd like.

Generally those in favor of "strict" gun laws usually cite laws that are already in effect, and have been for decades, yet they still aren't satisfied. When asked what else should be done, they usually have no clue.

So they are either ignorant of their own laws or they are just using their gun control stance as rhetoric, and their real aims (though not publicly stated) are to abolish gun ownership altogether.

I just wish those that are anti-gun would come right out and say it, like RAZD. I don't agree with RAZD, but I appreciate his honesty on the matter.

I, however, am for gun control too. I just sometimes disagree with those who refer to themselves as gun control advocates. If I had my way, I would seek additional legislation that prohibits those with severe mental disorders from owning firearms. This is, however, slowly coming to fruition.


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2010 11:15 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-21-2010 1:07 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 103 of 218 (551093)
03-20-2010 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Apothecus
03-20-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
personal psychological torment would be NOTHING -- I repeat, NOTHING compared to the torment I'd experience if inaction on my part contributed to the death of a family member.

Some people on this thread think more highly of your assailant than they do your family and apparently expect you to cower in a corner somewhere or invite your tormentor to have a cup of tea with you.

You can call it paranoia, or even "home-vigilantism." I call it practical. I call it common sense.

Psh, gun-toting radical!


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Apothecus, posted 03-20-2010 6:33 PM Apothecus has not yet responded

    
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 104 of 218 (551095)
03-20-2010 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
03-20-2010 8:01 PM


Re: The role of the militia and the role of the people in the constitution.
Police are also routinely trained to recognize when the use of force is necessary and when it is not - you and the average citizen are not, and thus you are much more likely to make a mistake.

RAZD, the police are not legally even allowed to be in your home without your expressed permission, a search warrant, or under exigent circumstances. If you stumble on to an intruder in your home, you have to be able to take matters in to your own hands. Perhaps you've heard of the term "justifiable homicide."

I'm not telling you that you have to shoot them on sight (which obviously is based on circumstance), I am saying something far more simple. I am saying that you are afforded the right to defend yourself with a firearm in your own home.

Logically, if your argument were true, everyone would go around the neighborhood jogging in a bullet-proof vest, carrying SWAT rifles and looking for intruders. Ridiculous.

Yeah, that is ridiculous. What makes it even more ridiculous is that you equate me with having said this or even implied it. I said that people are afforded the right to defend themselves. They are afforded the highest protection within their own home.

The reason pro-gun activists use scare tactics like this (logical fallacy of argument from consequences as well), is that they do not have a leg to stand on to show that guns actually provide more protection for kids in houses (for example) than not having guns.

I have supplied numerous statistics at the beginning of the thread. Feel free to go over them since no one seemed to want to touch them with a 10-foot pole.

The statistics show - conclusively in my opinion - that guns in houses leads to more deaths and permanent disabilities for kids in those houses than have been caused by outside disturbances.

Lets look at the statistics on how many people die in car accidents, and then be horrified at the number and come to the conclusion that "cars are bad" based off of that. Because that is essentially what you are doing, only you give the car a pass but not the gun. Justifiable homicide, regardless of how frequent or infrequent doesn't diminish the right.

You want to protect your house? Get a burglar alarm system -- it has the advantage of working while you are away as well as when you are home. There are solutions to the paranoid scenarios that don't require guns

Or you could get an alarm system, a guard dog, and a gun, depending on where you live and the prevalence of violent crime in your neighborhood. The question is why you think you can dictate for me what is an appropriate measure of defense when the Constitution affords me that right.

Please note and acknowledge that this definition cannot be applied to the British forces, and thus that Penn & Teller were pulling a fast one on you.

You are conflating two different things. The reason why the militia exists, and the People the right to bear arms, is because of what happened to them fighting the British. That is 100% historically accurate. Why "citizens" i.e. militia/people had weapons is to fight other militia men and armies.

Perhaps you should move to Switzerland then, and see how much you like their gun controls.

Or you could move to Canada and enjoy their gun control. I'm the one standing for the Constitutional rights of this country, which is continually agreed with by the SCOTUS. It seems you are at odds with it.

You also have the National Guard units throughout the states, volunteer units run by the states for the express purposes outlined in the constitution for a well trained militia.

The National Guard operates under the US Army, specifically. That is not in keeping with the descriptions of what the militia was supposed to be. For one thing, it was argued that militias could be formed by the People. (Please refer to my numerous quotes of the Framers). The only real provision was that they be organized and trained.

There is a reason that National Guard units are called up during catastrophes (hurricanes and earthquakes, for example) but military units are not -- and it has to do with the provisions of the constitution to balance the power of the federal government against the powers of the states.

More specifically it has to do with Posse Comitatus, specifically while under Title 32 USC.

But you do want to act as judge jury and executioner if you find someone in your house. The constitution does not give you that authority, nor is that a right protected by the constitution.

Nonsense, what do you call "personal protection?" Let me then ask you what you are supposed to do with an intruder who has you at knife point?

If there are social reasons that cause people to feel they need to invade the houses of others, then the problem will be solved by social solutions, not by people with guns killing intruders - that only treats the symptoms, not the cause/s. Treat the cause/s and nobody would need guns for defense.

Define "social solutions" when it relates to home invasion, please.

I choose to choose civilization over paranoid anarchy when it comes to law enforcement.

I hope one day we could conduct a social experiment where you come home to a mock intruder unbeknownst to you to see how you handle it.

I would be most interested in seeing it. Because let's suppose you used force on them. It's the same as you playing judge, is it not?


"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston
This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 03-20-2010 8:01 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2010 7:03 AM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 110 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2010 5:53 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1265 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 105 of 218 (551102)
03-21-2010 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Hyroglyphx
03-20-2010 9:24 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Hyro writes:

Firstly, let me say thank you for adhering to the spirit of the debate.

Not a problem. I see no reason why we can't discuss this issue rationally.

right, and should this be federally mandated or up to the States to decide for themselves?

Federally standardized, state enforced IMHO. Loopholes tend to occur when one state abides by a standard and another does not.

Already a law. All states do this because this time is to conduct a proper and thorough NCIC and Interpol wants/warrants checks. Some states make the waiting period longer. The state I live in now has a 5-day waiting period, for instance.

Yes, but it varies from state to state. I have no problem with differing state regulations as long as any loopholes are closed. Federal regulation eliminates this problem. However, I know many have a heart ache with federal oversight vice that of the states. To me it makes no difference as long as the end result is the same.

Hyro writes:

Apparently not that hard since all of these measures have already been implemented.

I realized this when I responded but you did not ask me what stricter gun laws I wanted to implement you asked me:

Hyro writes:

That is why I think it is important to define terms and important in outlining the specific means of control.

Any suggestions you have are welcomed.

So I took that to mean terms and specific means of control of guns, current and/or proposed, not just proposed gun control laws that I would like implemented in the future.

Generally those in favor of "strict" gun laws usually cite laws that are already in effect, and have been for decades, yet they still aren't satisfied.

When did I say I was not satisfied with current means of control? I think that the current legislation on gun control is pretty adequate but that we just need to more effectively enforce these laws and standardize them nationally so there are no loopholes.

So they are either ignorant of their own laws or they are just using their gun control stance as rhetoric, and their real aims (though not publicly stated) are to abolish gun ownership altogether.

This is remarkable for someone who regularly uses weapons both on and off duty to want to abolish gun ownership. Sounds like you are someone looking for a fight without knowing who your opponent is. If you are talking about someone else i.e. anti-gun advocates, disregard what I just said.

I just wish those that are anti-gun would come right out and say it, like RAZD. I don't agree with RAZD, but I appreciate his honesty on the matter.

I am not anti-gun. I am pro gun rights within certain limitations and pro-gun control. This is not an either-or dilemna.

I, however, am for gun control too. I just sometimes disagree with those who refer to themselves as gun control advocates. If I had my way, I would seek additional legislation that prohibits those with severe mental disorders from owning firearms. This is, however, slowly coming to fruition.

Agreed.

BTW, even though I support the 2nd ammendment, I do think the world would be better off without any weapons. However, I am not stupid and unrealistic enough to think that this will ever happen or that total pacificism is the answer to all the worlds problems. We have opened pandoras box and it is impossible to put the demons back in. The only solution is to regulate the weapons we currently have and continue to produce. This is also one of the reasons I believe in a just law enforcement and military system. Someone has to take care of the bad guys out there and good, moral people need to be in these organizations.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-20-2010 9:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by ICANT, posted 03-21-2010 1:55 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded
 Message 112 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2010 9:26 AM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
56
7
89
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019