Firearm debate

Quote

Fire arms do not exist exclusively to threaten violence against others.

You're going to have to back that up.

I live in a part of the country rural enough that dangerous animals are still a problem. There are still lots of parts of the US where its prudent to own a firearm for defending yourself against animals other than humans.

But it's an unnecessary argument. This is a free society. By default we're allowed to do what we want without having to justify the purpose of something. The onus is on whoever is trying to curb that freedom.

Which is not to say I'm opposed to some sane firearm laws but "what do you need that for?" isn't a valid argument.

Motor vehicles kill more people than guns ever year, why aren't we regulating and banning them?

Quote from: Rama Set on January 17, 2017, 05:09:54 AM

Most reasonable people agree that anyone buying guns whenever they want is not totally responsible. The execution of the restriction is the tough part.

Restriction is forbidden by our Constitution.

2nd Amendment :  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The word "Militia" refers to adult males not in military service. Citizens.


So . . . A functional, armed population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As I just said in the post above, I have read the second amendment.  I don't particularly care what it says, the constitution is not infallible, and to me it seems to be outdated and need changing.

The debate should be centered around maintaining a civil society and not around access to tools.

Why should it?  Access to tools is an issue that needs to be addressed, especially when the tool has the purpose to harm and kill others.

The cognitive dissonance in people who are anti-gun regulation is so bizarre to me.  Constitutional rights are limited or modified regularly, and done legally, since the constitution is not meant to be an absolute, but when it crosses over to guns, all of a sudden the constitution becomes rigid and inflexible.  What gives?

I live in a part of the country rural enough that dangerous animals are still a problem. There are still lots of parts of the US where its prudent to own a firearm for defending yourself against animals other than humans.

Sure, if you want to include animals in "others" then go ahead.

But it's an unnecessary argument. This is a free society. By default we're allowed to do what we want without having to justify the purpose of something. The onus is on whoever is trying to curb that freedom.

I made an argument to that effect.

Which is not to say I'm opposed to some sane firearm laws but "what do you need that for?" isn't a valid argument.

Anyone who wants to eliminate guns just because they are dangerous is completely off-base in my mind.  The only people who should be considered for denial of ownership of a gun is someone who can be shown to be likely to use the gun to do unwarranted violence to another.

Motor vehicles kill more people than guns ever year, why aren't we regulating and banning them?

Motor vehicles are heavily regulated, so I am not sure what you are talking about.

I'm just saying, every time something happens the liberals cry about gun control and whatnot. But do the majority of mass shootings occur? In gun free zones. Just think if some of the teachers, security guards, ect had a gun how many lives would have been saved.

Spain is a quite restrictive country for the most part in relation to guns, and we do not have that many shootings, just saying. Maybe it's because not letting everybody carry a tool designed to kill helps.

In the US, Chicago is a city with some of, if not THE, most restrictive gun laws around. And guess what, this past year they set records for the amount of shootings and murders. Criminals will always find ways to get guns. And rememeber, Hitler disarmed his citizens before taking over.

Just to get this out of the way, I LOVE GUNS.

Anyway, Albert - motor vehicles are heavily regulated. People die in traffic accidents quite a lot, but fatalities are back down to nearly 1950s levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Also, the right wing starts crying "they're gonna take our guns" every time there's a mass shooting. Liberals hardly have to make a peep about it. It has the intended effect - gun sales skyrocket.

I do believe there is room for some improvement in gun laws. I don't think it's such a bad idea to maybe restrict gun sales for people who are on the terrorist watch list, for example. Of course, these people should be allowed to defend themselves and prove they're not terrorists (regardless of whether they want to buy guns or not).

Albert, your point gets shot down by the fact that criminals only have to make a 10 min ride to get to where they can get a weapon. We have criminals in Spain, sure. But it's quite hard to get a handgun, not to talk about a rifle. Do you know what ETA is? It's a terrorist group, had contacts with IRA when de latter was still active, etc. What do they use? small handguns and old dinamite from minesites. An organized terrorist group, and most of their arsenal is just old revolvers, some 1911s and defective explosives. I think it's a safe bet to say I can walk down the street and I won't be shot.

That's also one of the reasons why lately terrorist attacks in Europe are just trucks running over people. They couldn't get the weapons they needed.

I'm not an anti-gun guy. I love them. But I don't want to be surrounded by people who have de means to shoot me, 24/7.

Just to get this out of the way, I LOVE GUNS.

Anyway, Albert - motor vehicles are heavily regulated. People die in traffic accidents quite a lot, but fatalities are back down to nearly 1950s levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Also, the right wing starts crying "they're gonna take our guns" every time there's a mass shooting. Liberals hardly have to make a peep about it. It has the intended effect - gun sales skyrocket.

I do believe there is room for some improvement in gun laws. I don't think it's such a bad idea to maybe restrict gun sales for people who are on the terrorist watch list, for example. Of course, these people should be allowed to defend themselves and prove they're not terrorists (regardless of whether they want to buy guns or not).

This right here illustrates the problem with how we talk about guns.  This should be a very boring conversation.  It should have been a discussion of public safety much like traffic rules and regulations are.  Instead what we have is one half of the country suffering from a paranoid delusion that Obama is going to take away all the guns and the other half insisting that anyone who owns a firearm is on their way to committing mass murder.

Can you imagine how much worse off we would be if we couldn't so much as suggest making seat belts mandatory without an obscenely powerful lobby riling up half the country and telling them they're going to take away their cars?

In the US, Chicago is a city with some of, if not THE, most restrictive gun laws around. And guess what, this past year they set records for the amount of shootings and murders.

Source?  I could only find that they were approaching 1997 levels of violence when they had 761 murders. How strongly have you correlated the gun laws and shootings?  For example, have you corrected for education and wealth levels in the areas where the majority of the shootings take place?  Does downtown Chicago have proportionately more shootings than a similar downtown with stricter gun laws? I have never seen any of this real investigation, so I would love it if you could bring it to my attention.

Criminals will always find ways to get guns. And rememeber, Hitler disarmed his citizens before taking over.

Who is disarming the citizens?  Some fringe elements have asked for a ban on assault weapons, but I have not seen a serious call for the banning of gun possession anywhere ever. It's a myth.

EDIT: As it turns out St Louis which has much laxer gun laws than Chicago has a much bigger problem with gun violence and murder. They have triple the murder rate and 8 times the shootings. So how do we explain that in the context of gun regulation?
Source: www.thetrace.org/2016/10/chicago-gun-violence-per-capita-rate/amp/

I like guns....I have an armory in a slightly but not so much of a sarcastic way. I am very pro gun... However, I will say this.

You either need to have all or nothing...Limit to those with violent felonies and those with multiple violent misdemeanors and that's it...Or just banish them all together.

The vetting system is a joke and only serves as a feel good for idiots. If there are gonna be guns, everyone open carry, truly learn how to use them etc. Have said this before, no one in their right mind is gonna March in a room with everyone openly carrying a fire arm looking to shoot up the room. The only people that will, are going to be mentally not fit. They would do it no matter what if they reach that point.

Much better for that insane person to only be able to hurt a couple people if that before being stopped, over an entire room or building of people. Just for an example of a military base here that a nut came in and started shooting...He did it in an area where people were not armed and he was a nut, yet he wouldn't even go into an area where people were armed.

It's our personal version of M.A.D and is effective...

I like guns....I have an armory in a slightly but not so much of a sarcastic way. I am very pro gun... However, I will say this.

You either need to have all or nothing...Limit to those with violent felonies and those with multiple violent misdemeanors and that's it...Or just banish them all together.

I think a case could be made that a few other segments of people might qualify to be prohibited, but basically yes.  Although I don't think anyone should ever accept an outright ban. 

The vetting system is a joke and only serves as a feel good for idiots. If there are gonna be guns, everyone open carry, truly learn how to use them etc. Have said this before, no one in their right mind is gonna March in a room with everyone openly carrying a fire arm looking to shoot up the room. The only people that will, are going to be mentally not fit. They would do it no matter what if they reach that point.

Much better for that insane person to only be able to hurt a couple people if that before being stopped, over an entire room or building of people. Just for an example of a military base here that a nut came in and started shooting...He did it in an area where people were not armed and he was a nut, yet he wouldn't even go into an area where people were armed.

It's our personal version of M.A.D and is effective...

I am definitely all for everyone being educated on gun operation and safety.  It seems incredibly strange that it is entirely reliant on socialization at this point.  Teach it in high school maybe?

Teach it in high school maybe?

The schools here are under liberal control so that would never happen. Eventually it will be in the books that America was free by giving the British a good strong talking to.

Not to mention, that would mean our education system teaching something that is useful in real life...and that is a no-no...As well as an entirely different thread.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 18, 2017, 06:35:49 AM

Teach it in high school maybe?

The schools here are under liberal control so that would never happen. Eventually it will be in the books that America was free by giving the British a good strong talking to.

Aren't schools under state control?  That would make the majority of them under republican control, no?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 18, 2017, 07:16:08 AM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 18, 2017, 06:35:49 AM

Teach it in high school maybe?

The schools here are under liberal control so that would never happen. Eventually it will be in the books that America was free by giving the British a good strong talking to.

Aren't schools under state control?  That would make the majority of them under republican control, no?

The culture of our education system typically leans liberal.  Not sure why, maybe a sociologist could answer that.

I kind of like the idea of teaching firearm safety in schools.  That and swimming lessons.  Our kids are more likely to drown than get killed by a firearm.

The culture of our education system typically leans liberal. Not sure why

If you look at the people actually running the "system", also look at the people that write and decide the curriculum. Then look at the teachers...Who spend most of their life in an echo chamber. Will give you a good idea of the why.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 17, 2017, 12:39:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 17, 2017, 05:09:54 AM

Most reasonable people agree that anyone buying guns whenever they want is not totally responsible. The execution of the restriction is the tough part.

Restriction is forbidden by our Constitution.

2nd Amendment :  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The word "Militia" refers to adult males not in military service. Citizens.


So . . . A functional, armed population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As I just said in the post above, I have read the second amendment.  I don't particularly care what it says, the constitution is not infallible, and to me it seems to be outdated and need changing.

So, you're backing up your opinion with feelings?   

Quote from: Rama Set on January 17, 2017, 01:22:51 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 17, 2017, 12:39:21 PM

Quote from: Rama Set on January 17, 2017, 05:09:54 AM

Most reasonable people agree that anyone buying guns whenever they want is not totally responsible. The execution of the restriction is the tough part.

Restriction is forbidden by our Constitution.

2nd Amendment :  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

The word "Militia" refers to adult males not in military service. Citizens.


So . . . A functional, armed population, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As I just said in the post above, I have read the second amendment.  I don't particularly care what it says, the constitution is not infallible, and to me it seems to be outdated and need changing.

So, you're backing up your opinion with liberal feelings?   

Ftfy.

So, you're backing up your opinion with feelings?   

No.

I am actually surprised in Rama set, for being a liberal, he has views of gun ownership like that of a libertarian.

I tip my hat to him...Weird to be in agreement with him lol, usually we are explaining to each other why the other is an idiot.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 18, 2017, 09:15:45 PM

So, you're backing up your opinion with feelings?   

No.

Well, the 2nd Amendment is the established RULE. If you want to override the will of the people it only takes a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate and 3/4 of the States to ratify the change in the Constitution.

Good luck.   

Quote from: Rama Set on January 19, 2017, 11:29:27 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 18, 2017, 09:15:45 PM

So, you're backing up your opinion with feelings?   

No.

Well, the 2nd Amendment is the established RULE. If you want to override the will of the people it only takes a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate and 3/4 of the States to ratify the change in the Constitution.

Good luck.   

You should really learn how lawmaking works.  Reasonable restrictions are put on constitutional rights frequently because 1. The constitution is not immutable and 2. It is a reasonable thing to do in a free and open society.

I can't help but to giggle at the irony (and alcohol has nothing to do with this I swear) at some of the posts someone has been making on FB.  He's a ultra left-wing socialist/liberal, (the political spectrum that usually seems to be at the forefront of the "ban all firearms" argument), and lately he posted that his fellow countrymen need to start "destroying republican" and "murder them in the streets". 

And all I could think was;

You should really learn how lawmaking works.  Reasonable restrictions are put on constitutional rights frequently because 1. The constitution is not immutable and 2. It is a reasonable thing to do in a free and open society.

I'm curious as to which Constitutional Rights are frequently restricted?
Do you have an example?

I can't think of any law which abrogates a Constitutional Right that has been left to stand.

Quote from: Rama Set on January 21, 2017, 06:31:54 PM

You should really learn how lawmaking works.  Reasonable restrictions are put on constitutional rights frequently because 1. The constitution is not immutable and 2. It is a reasonable thing to do in a free and open society.

I'm curious as to which Constitutional Rights are frequently restricted?
Do you have an example?

I can't think of any law which abrogates a Constitutional Right that has been left to stand.

There are laws regarding the freedom of speech, such as using speech to incite fear in public like yelling bomb at an airport when there is none.  There are laws regulating the right to vote. 

The "fire in a crowded theater" thing means we don't have a right to incite people to do harm to others. IF there is a fire in the theater, you can definitely shout it. There are laws against obscenity - apparently this guy had sex with a dog (legal in Texas!)http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Deputy-accused-in-obscenity-case-faces-more-10856448.php , his mistake was filming it which made it obscene.