Gun Control Discussion

[mtcookson]

Found here: http://www.patriotfiles.com/fo...71127

Good and funny read.

-----------------------------

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent articles on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later by an act of Congress in 1917.

13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state militia".

14. These phrases,"right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why police departments, federal enforcement agencies, the armed forces, and the US Coast guard have millions of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.

18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it uncompromisingly defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, as former president of the NRA, is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc., is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators that work in a building full of cops, DO need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands". Guess what? You've got the wrong hands.

[Cold_Zero]

Hahaahahaaaaaaaaaaa

You just made my day!

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

This one is soooo true! And when something goes wrong in a shoot out or hostage situtation, the City is always the first to cover their own ***. Not yours!

[skylndrftr]

among the statistivs this guy is taking out of contact and the things hes misinterpreting etc, there are several factual errors. Including:

Quote »12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later by an act of Congress in 1917.[/quote]actually it refers to militias, which were a large part of our war against the english and had existed well before that.

[Repo Man]

among the statistivs this guy is taking out of contact and the things hes misinterpreting etc, there are several factual errors. Including:

actually it refers to militias, which were a large part of our war against the english and had existed well before that.

You're missing the point. The anti-rights fruitcakes use "militia" to mean the National Guard which is obviously erroneous.

What else you got?

[mtcookson]

Repo beat me to it.

[Cold_Zero]

Doh! Late to the game as well.

Quote »14. These phrases,"right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.[/quote]How true is this?

[Repo Man]

I think you scared Bob and telcoman off...

[Cold_Zero]

Maybe it was this that scared them away?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqTRWvmHB5Y

Metallica before they started to suck.

[mtcookson]

Bump for telco

I didn't want to post in a locked thread so I'm just bumping this in response to your "more laws/regulations/etc on guns" thing.

[Jimefam]

The nra always uses those arguements when confronted with new gun legislation but that is missing the point. Very few people are looking to ban guns outright but to make the checks more stringent for people to purchase them. I see nothing wrong with waiting a couple of days for indepth background checks. I own several guns but when I purchased my first one it took like 7 business days cause I wasn't a citizen just a permanent resident, my wife was born here and it took her 4 business day for hers. No big deal, I was actually glad that someone was monitoring who gets these things. I doubt you will be so unlucky as to be in a situation where a firearm is needed during that one week.

[The Wicker Man]

[Jesda]

The nra always uses those arguements when confronted with new gun legislation but that is missing the point. Very few people are looking to ban guns outright

Actually, poorly run cities across the country are seeking outright bans and have in no subtle way made that very very clear. That slippery slope is very wet. Mayors like to blame guns to avoid being blamed themselves for inadequate policing, poor economic development, and poor education.

[wingFeather]

Very few people are looking to ban guns outright but to make the checks more stringent for people to purchase them.

Gun laws are strict enough. Ever tried owning a handgun in California, for example? Or move there & try to register one that you've owned forever from another state? The cards are stacked in favor of CRIMINALS who don't need to adhere to any laws.

Once you make it okay for progressively repressive legislation, I guarantee you it will morph into something hideous (as in California).

Using logic to support gay marriage: "If you don't like guns, don't buy them." and pro-babykilling logic "It's my body, so don't tell me I cannot carry a gun."

[dusred]

LOL! That's an excellent article.

Remember, when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

[srellim234]

The way the system and law was explained in another thread here, I think Virginia has really made great strides in this area and should be considered as a model for the vast majority of states to follow. Their adjusted system and laws (post Virginia Tech) can be explained in great detail by NICO members who actually work with it but it's definitely worth a look before any more emotional hysteria is put into this discussion by either side.

[ddgsxr504]

Awesome read.. my favorite one,

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

[Beancooker]

I think Telco is changing his mind:

You are an example of someone who needs to take an 8 hour driver training course.

It is because of drivers like you that make people late for work.

I usually do not support guns being carried in vehicles but for drivers like you I'll make an exception

Telcoman

From this thread: zerothread?id=365628

[AZhitman]

^ HAHAHAHA THAT is awesome.

Keep in mind, telco's got some firearms training under his belt...

Pissed-off Geriatric New Jerseyan: 1Slowass Pickup Driver: 0

[hannibal]

Funny, I just found out my roommate is an NRA supporter. So we had a discussion on the topic. He thinks the people's right to bear arms is limitless and shouldnt be compromised AT ALL by gun control laws for the reason below.

Once you make it okay for progressively repressive legislation, I guarantee you it will morph into something hideous (as in California).

He also believes that the bill of rights authors proposed this right to protect us from the possible oppression by our government. Therefore, citizens should be able to have the same weapons that law enforcement has access to.

I think there has to be some limits on types and number of guns an individual owns. I agree with the right to bear arms, but not without bounds.

I'm curious what those of you who exercise that right think about having limits on gun ownership.

[Beancooker]

I think that you should be allowed to own a gun in the US, if you are a citizen that still possess Constitutional Rights, has never been convicted of a felony, have never had serious mental issues.

The only guns that I think that the Government should regulate is any gun that is considered an automatic weapon. By automatic weapon, I mean more than one round is fired by one pull of the trigger. Full auto and three/five round bursts have their place, but not for everyday civilian use.

I do think that if a civilian wants to possess a full auto/burst weapon, it shouldn't be the expensive legal loophole that it is to get a Class 1 FFL.I think that if you have a full auto weapon, it should be well documented, and under the conditions that 1) You will open up your doors to the ATF if they do a random check of your full auto weapon.2) If you ever have the police coming to your home for a violent call or shots fired, you have already signed consent for them to use deadly force against you. (They can shoot you and don't need to see a weapon in your hands).

[dusred]

^ I couldn't agree more.

I am not a gun owner myself (I'm under 18), and my Parents don't own guns; in fact nobody I know owns a gun. I have never even fired a gun before. But I am still against any laws against the ownership of guns with the exception of automatic weapons.

I think the world would be a safer place if it was required for every household to have a gun and every citizen over the age of 18 trained in the use thereof. Call me stupid but I'll bet crime in the US would be reduced by 50% or more if this were the case.

[telcoman]

I think you scared Bob and telcoman off...

No Andrew no one scared me off.

I started and posted the thread below because I have actually modified my position on gun ownership and credit Marenta with her intelligent and well written previous posts on the subject

Those that ranted and bashed me did not change my views.

zer...r-you

Having said that, the big problem that I have with guns are the stories in the news such as the one above that point out how guns easily get into the wrong hands. I have to assume the facts are correct?

I believe the NRA should be doing more to prevent guns falling into the wrong hands. If the individual members put more pressure on the NRA leadership to do this perhaps there would be less opposition to guns among the general population?

I have no problem with responsible adults owning guns or even teaching teenagers how to use one.

I also have no problem with legal gun owners target shooting at old rusty Fords up on blocks in front yards that destroy the view among the trees and bushes. After all what else is there to do?

Perhaps Palin and her husband thought of something when they ran out of ammunition?

Telcoman

[HashiriyaS14]

This is *sort of* bordering on the "Wall of Text" thing, but rather than delete it, I'm changed the title and ALL gun control issue discussion will now be confined to this thread. We needed a gun control thread anyway.

Additionally, while the list posted is brazenly partisan, it's also sort of an attempt at funny satire. It's definitely not a news article per se.

I disagree with tons of it, despite the fact that I generally think of myself as being pretty ardently pro-2nd Amendment.

I still don't buy all this malarkey that one of the reasons we own firearms is to defend ourselves against the Government. Private citizens need guns to hunt, defend their home from criminals, defend themselves in wilderness, and target shoot. That's it. Thus, no one needs full-auto capability or a 100-round dual-drum mag, IMO.

[wingFeather]

I'm having flashbacks of the Clinton years:

no one needs full-auto capability or a 100-round dual-drum mag, IMO.

You've never lived through a riot in Los Angeles. You'd be amazed at how quickly "peaceful society" can turn on you & slam your head against the pavement with a cinder block

Full auto is an FBI issue. I don't think you'll see anyone arguing it.

If you don't like 100 round drums, don't buy them. They are nothing to be afraid of. Your neighbor can just as easily kill you with a pencil!

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm having flashbacks of the Clinton years:

You've never lived through a riot in Los Angeles. You'd be amazed at how quickly "peaceful society" can turn on you & slam your head against the pavement with a cinder block

Full auto is an FBI issue. I don't think you'll see anyone arguing it.

If you don't like 100 round drums, don't buy them. They are nothing to be afraid of. Your neighbor can just as easily kill you with a pencil!

Justifying private ownership of weapons that have no purpose other than to kill many people very quickly because of the off-chance of a very rare cataclysmic riot doesn't make sense to me. Just my opinion.

Guns are for sport (hunting or target), home defense, and carry. You can't carry a Calico M900. No one needs one. You can defend yourself with a Civilianized AR15 with a bunch of 10-round clips just fine, or with a handgun, or with a semi-auto shotgun.

Additionally, short-barreled or concealable high-cap weapons exist solely to get the jump on people and START problems. No one needs a 9-inch long Tec9 with a 30rd mag for concealed carry defense when a USP will do just fine. It's ridiculous. I have the same view of short-barreled shotguns, etc.

Again, my opinion, but I'm pretty adamant about it.

[mtcookson]

I still don't buy all this malarkey that one of the reasons we own firearms is to defend ourselves against the Government.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the founding fathers' #1 reason for the right to keep and bear arms. People always say "the government would never do that"... they are already trying to take away our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, what makes one think the won't go further?

I can see automatic weapons being banned... but at the same time that law still keeps them out of law abiding citizen's hands. If a criminal wants a fully automatic weapon they are most certainly going to get it.

One thing I have a major problem with is banning silencers. That one kind of aggravates me as silencers would make shooting/hunting much safer. You wouldn't have to wear near as much hearing protection, if any depending on the gun, which means its safer on your ears and since you can have lighter or no ear protection you can also hear whats going on around you much better. Say if someone yells in the distance you would be much more likely to hear them.

[wingFeather]

People, please research long-standing laws against"automatic weapons"!!!

An automatic weapon is a "machine gun".

It has been unlawful since 1934 for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. The FBI will investigate you, and decide if you're worthy to own one. From what I was told, the FBI also does spot checks.

Furthermore, some states add legislation on top of the FEDERAL laws that ban ownership COMPLETELY.

However, criminals can own automatic weapons with no problems

[wingFeather]

I almost forgot.

Ownership of machine guns made after '86 & up has been prohibited to civilians ENTIRELY.

[HashiriyaS14]

I wouldn't be surprised if that was the founding fathers' #1 reason for the right to keep and bear arms. People always say "the government would never do that"... they are already trying to take away our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, what makes one think the won't go further?

My issue isn't that "the government would never do that", it's that if they ever did, the incremental increase in firepower of citizens owning M900s versus owning sporting shotguns would not afford said citizens any meaningfully increased protection against a malevolent government when said government is armed with Abrams tanks, cruise missiles, smart bombs, and other tools of mechanized warfare.

It was a meaningful check/balance back in the 1700's when a confrontation between government and citizenry would've meant "guys with muskets versus other guys with muskets", but this is obviously not the case in the 21st century. If the US government really decided to wage war on it's population, there's nothing the population could do about it, and thus this incredibly unlikely scenario is not a justification for citizens owning assault weaponry.

I can see automatic weapons being banned... but at the same time that law still keeps them out of law abiding citizen's hands. If a criminal wants a fully automatic weapon they are most certainly going to get it.

Automatic weapons aren't really "banned", you just need a Class 3 endorsement to be able to own them. Plenty of people own fully automatic weapons. There's a guy who comes to the VA Machine Gun shoot who owns a functional GE Minigun. My friend's Dad has an FFL and he just picked up a shiny new, unused H&K UMP45, full 3-rd burst capability.

One thing I have a major problem with is banning silencers. That one kind of aggravates me as silencers would make shooting/hunting much safer. You wouldn't have to wear near as much hearing protection, if any depending on the gun, which means its safer on your ears and since you can have lighter or no ear protection you can also hear whats going on around you much better. Say if someone yells in the distance you would be much more likely to hear them.

I'm not buying into this. The upside is that it decreases hearing damage but the downside is that people are going to be able to commit murder in crowded urban areas without making a sound?

Again, this is a problem that stems from rural versus urban America. Silencers may be harmless and even beneficial in rural America, but we don't want criminals to be able to legally buy silencers on the streets of DC. It would make it SO much easier to kill people and get away with it.

[wingFeather]

Plenty of people own fully automatic weapons.

"Plenty" is only correct if you consider a handful too much. The FBI does not go around handing out permission slips for these things. See my post above.

Also, right now you consider large caliber rifles "unnecessary". When the big rifles are gone, then the shotgun becomes the new unnecessary weapon. What would we need such a WMD for? A .22 should suffice.

Clinton even went as far as banning weapons that "looked" dangerous. What a joke that was.