US Gun debate formerly "Tough Times apparently" from Versa forum

[C-Kwik]

It doesnt really matter what we think the founding fathers intended as if we need to divine what was in their head, because they wrote it down! And I would have to think for the time, gun packing citizens is exactly what the founding fathers would have envisioned when writing the 2nd Amendment.

Its a bit far-fetched to believe that the founders of this nation could viably forsee the technology and gun power we have now. I would contend that it would be a rather futile task to try and look at intent as it applies to today. It would be pretty niave/ignorant to believe that all the founders would have written the right to bear arms portion of the Constitution if they knew what gun technology and society was like now. They may still, but then again, they might not.

Also, I tend to be a bit baffled by those who hide behind this aspect of the Constitution and the "intent" that citizens should be able to protect themselves from the government. I'd contend that virtually no gun owners out there are buying their guns for this purpose. Most, likely do so because they like to shoot, hunt, or just plain love guns. Some do out of fear or for protection.

To be fair, some anti-gun folk can tend to be a little too extreme at times. While I do agree that automatic rifles really don't have much place here, I just don't find the majority of gun owners to be irresponsible yahoos who pop off rounds at the first person to piss them off. But to those who oppose gun control, consider the kind of damage that could occur if say the Virginia Tech shooter (for example) were able to legally obtain an automatic rifle without a crapload of hurdles to overcome. Not saying absolute gun control would have prevented the incident or ones like it, but one must ask if current gun control laws have prevented some.

I think people on both sides of the gun control debate can agree that we all want peace, and a safe environment to live in. Some people view guns as the solution. Others view it as the problem. As a result the issue becomes highly polarized. Instead of seeking viable middleground, neither side seems to want to try and compromise or look for a solution.

Now fast forward to the future. If we are only allowed to own and bear bolt action rifles and revolvers, we would be VERY ill equipped if we had to rise up against our standing army. I think that there should be no outright bans saying what you can and cannot own. However I also understand the need for certain types of firearms to be regulated such as full auto guns. if you want something very unique and extremely potent, you should have to meet some higher standards than someone who just wants to buy a cheap 22.

For argument's sake, is that to say we should be allowed to obatin nukes too? How about stealth fighters and bombers and their respective ordinance? In the big picture, were are currently very ill-equipped. I know this is pretty far-fetched. But I point it out as an illustration that this argument is rather weak. Moreover, it would seem to me that most anti-gun control people tend to deflect the concerns about gun violence by reverting to their consitutional right rather than face the actual problem.

Just to be clear though, I am not anti-gun. I do feel however, we need to make sure we are doing a reasonable job keeping guns out of the hands who should not have them (kids included) and educating gun owners on responsible gun ownership. There are plenty of gun owners who are. But like the responsibilities of driving, gun ownership carries a great deal of responsibilty as well. Considering the intent of a gun is to potentially stop and incapacitate a person, whereas a car is intended to get a person from point A to point B, should we not impose at least as much regulation, if not more into ensuring responsible gun ownership?

[hsckris]

Its a bit far-fetched to believe that the founders of this nation could viably forsee the technology and gun power we have now. I would contend that it would be a rather futile task to try and look at intent as it applies to today. It would be pretty niave/ignorant to believe that all the founders would have written the right to bear arms portion of the Constitution if they knew what gun technology and society was like now. They may still, but then again, they might not.

Also, I tend to be a bit baffled by those who hide behind this aspect of the Constitution and the "intent" that citizens should be able to protect themselves from the government. I'd contend that virtually no gun owners out there are buying their guns for this purpose. Most, likely do so because they like to shoot, hunt, or just plain love guns. Some do out of fear or for protection.

The 'intent' I was talking about is a legal argument designed to provide context and clarity to the language of the Amendment itself. If you are in the individual rights model camp you believe that you have the right to bear arms, regardless of why you chose to do so. To my knowledge conditions related to militia or need for public defense, safety, etc. are all up in the air as far as the Constitution itself is concerned. Usually conditions on ownership, possession, etc. are decided by state law.

If the Constitution confers the right individually, the subjective intent of the actual possessors is irrelevant. Every individual would have that right, regardless of why. It would matter not if they wished to have them as collectibles or to prevent government uprising or to hunt -- so long as they comply with applicable local & state laws they should be allowed to have the guns.

[C-Kwik]

The 'intent' I was talking about is a legal argument designed to provide context and clarity to the language of the Amendment itself. If you are in the individual rights model camp you believe that you have the right to bear arms, regardless of why you chose to do so. To my knowledge conditions related to militia or need for public defense, safety, etc. are all up in the air as far as the Constitution itself is concerned. Usually conditions on ownership, possession, etc. are decided by state law.

If the Constitution confers the right individually, the subjective intent of the actual possessors is irrelevant. Every individual would have that right, regardless of why. It would matter not if they wished to have them as collectibles or to prevent government uprising or to hunt -- so long as they comply with applicable local & state laws they should be allowed to have the guns.

As a matter of constitution, I agree. But the problem is that many pro-gun people tend to use the argument regardless of how reasonable or applicable it might (not) be. More specifically, to argue against regulation at the state level. I'd prefer to see much more productive discussions from both sides of the table as it would bring to light the REAL issues, the REAL concerns, and perhaps even work towards a REAL solution. Once an ideal solution can be found, effecting it becomes a matter of working it out within the framework of the government. Which is much easier to do if you know what it is you are trying to accomplish. Usually, on very polar issues, the result is either a complete win on one side (the other side loses tremendously) or both sides give a little and nothing actually gets accomplished (ineffective laws passed).

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Just to be clear though, I am not anti-gun. I do feel however, we need to make sure we are doing a reasonable job keeping guns out of the hands who should not have them (kids included) and educating gun owners on responsible gun ownership. There are plenty of gun owners who are. But like the responsibilities of driving, gun ownership carries a great deal of responsibilty as well. Considering the intent of a gun is to potentially stop and incapacitate a person, whereas a car is intended to get a person from point A to point B, should we not impose at least as much regulation, if not more into ensuring responsible gun ownership?[/quote]The safest practices and training are taught to kids. Kids can handle guns just fine. When trained properly, it is precisely those kids that are very aware of safe practices and handling of firearms. Tens of thousands of kids all over the country use guns. The enjoyment and satisfaction of shooting is especially apparent with kids.

It is the children that have never been introduced to firearms that seem to have this image that guns are bad. I am not saying kids should have to be introduced to guns. That is a parental choice. What I am saying is that the gun control crowd loves to use children as a strawman in their statistical argument. The fact is, children have been around guns, particularly rifles for centuries and using them safely.

Many kids were given guns as their first

The difference in your point about cars and guns is that keeping and bearing arms is a constitutionally protected right. Driving a car is not. So what some would consider "reasonable" gun regulation is not reasonable at all.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Reading previous posts, sounds like Bubs and Red Devil should get along great IMO! Maybe we Canadians should adopt the 2nd Amendment and go shoot Bubs, lol, he is verbally attacking us, AAAAHHHHH somebody please help us, now I always got to look over my shoulder because Bubs is a true patriot and you cant kill patriots, hes the walking dead, AAAHHHHH...... Bubs, it is our sole opinions and our freedom of speech to set forth our opinions in any way we deem necessary. You have alot of talent by the looks of grammar and maybe an important person wherever you work, but I am sure there are some Americans as well that dont agree with the constitution. We dont need to learn about your constitution, its a waste of time because we dont live by it, therefore we dont need a history lesson.

If your so patriotic, take this in as a proud American.

Inmates at Guantanamo Bay are getting top notch health care while half your country is getting none. (Terrorists getting better care than your own citizens!!!!)

9/11 was already known to happen prior to the events, the government ceased to believe it would happen (Fockin idiots) and apparently PROFESSIONAL INVERSTIGATORS revealed explosions going off RESULTING in the collapse of the Towers.

There got to be THOUSANDS more factual events that make me wonder about your government, but my question is, if it affects Canadians, how does it affect Americans? How can you live day to day knowing that alot of this grief and suffering could have been caused and started by the guy you voted into office? How can you go day to day knowing the Half of your citizens are not getting the Healthcare they do solemnly deserve as a True American, while the people who are directly involved with terrorlst and terrorlst activities are getting looked after, housed, medicines and the whole shebang, and not having to pay for it, but YOU are paying for it in your taxes?

If Canada was getting like that, I would move to Sweden or Germany. Think those facts over my friend and then respond accordingly making comments on how Canadians still live in Igloos and have no running water.[/quote]Honestly now you just sound like a loony moonbat. Half of our nation doesn't have healthcare? You're delusional. The scope of your ignorance is only matched by your naivete.

All I can say is your information is wrong on so many levels that I don't have the time nor inclination to address them all here. I know a damn sight more than you'll ever know for reasons you'll never know.

Here's a suggestion: Get out of your mom's basement and enter the real world.

[hsckris]

As a matter of constitution, I agree. But the problem is that many pro-gun people tend to use the argument regardless of how reasonable or applicable it might (not) be. More specifically, to argue against regulation at the state level. I'd prefer to see much more productive discussions from both sides of the table as it would bring to light the REAL issues, the REAL concerns, and perhaps even work towards a REAL solution. Once an ideal solution can be found, effecting it becomes a matter of working it out within the framework of the government. Which is much easier to do if you know what it is you are trying to accomplish. Usually, on very polar issues, the result is either a complete win on one side (the other side loses tremendously) or both sides give a little and nothing actually gets accomplished (ineffective laws passed).

So then, the question is what regulations are sufficiently related to the states interests so as to be allowed?

I submit that the guns rights folks likely will say they have already sacrificed too many rights, while the anti-gun folks won't be happy until no one is armed. This is the reason I generally do not delve into the practical side of the debate.

Of course this assumes that further (or less) regulation is the answer. I do not think it is. I think the answer is do nothing at all. No amount of regulation or deregulation will make the majority of people happy. Criminals will have guns regardless of whether weapons are outlawed and people will die regardless of whether weapons are outlawed. So probably best to just leave well enough alone. Regulation will only make one group or the other upset, all the while none of the problems perceived to be related to guns have been solved.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Of course this assumes that further (or less) regulation is the answer. I do not think it is. I think the answer is do nothing at all. No amount of regulation or deregulation will make the majority of people happy. Criminals will have guns regardless of whether weapons are outlawed and people will die regardless of whether weapons are outlawed. So probably best to just leave well enough alone. Regulation will only make one group or the other upset, all the while none of the problems perceived to be related to guns have been solved.

[/quote]Bingo.

[dblanehopr]

i don't have a problem understanding where some Canadians get their opinions.... especially since Detroit and the Canadian city across the lake **can't remember thename** ...have very very very different levels of crime... 3 murders in the Canadian city one year vs. the 13000 or so in Detroit... and the 3 murderers were from Detroit.

i would really like to be able to not have some fkr use a weapon as intimidation....

furthermore i think it's fkn retarded that i'm not allowed to carry around a sword or large knives, but i'm fully legal to carry around a 45.

it's retarded, and no amount of pompous random american insults are going to change that line of common sense... but America doesn't run of fkn common sense, more like pop culture and bs.

he doesn't sound crazy for saying that 9/11 was most likely a coverup. sounds a lot more rational than some low-level educated cavedwellers knowing how to fly a 747 and being able to take it over with a razorblade.

but him tryin to have an actual intellictual debate with a bunch of stuck-in-their-ww2parents-ways... is just a waste of time.

it is arrogance and ignorance that you see in Americans. don't fool yourself. they take more life cues from comedians and hollywood than they do of scientists... or experts.and the mere turnout of voters acting like Obama's the savior was damn good proof of that. and a good reason on why we have so much violence..... besides the over population and lack of work due to ppl thinking that we can take all the ppl of the world in and still be able to care for ourselves..

and yeah i know that i'm not making a fkn collegegrade endterm debate class argument here... probably because this isn't fkn debate class and i'm just typing down some opinions.

there's always a hand off when it comes to government... less freedom to personal things... but without it, we'd still be warring animals...

but we still are...

either way... there's no freakin point in you ppl calling each other's opinions moronic or wrong.

because there's plenty of americans that still believe there's a wild west.... and there is.... and there's plenty of americans that think of 9/11 being a coverup, and plenty more that think that handguns should be banned...

that still leaves you with rifles and such.

me personally.... i think humanity's always gonna be fked up cuz we're not exactly the brightest of beings. so guns or not... we'll find a way to territorially kill each other like fkn monkeys.

bottom line... maybe with as many fkn probs we have... we should stop acting like we're so freakin special til we can say again that we're the best. cuz we fkn aren't anymore.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »3 murders in the Canadian city one year vs. the 13000 or so in Detroit... and the 3 murderers were from Detroit.[/quote]You lose all credibility right from the get go. 13,000 murders. But why let facts get in the way.

You're all over the road with this post. Are you just too lazy to use punctuation and capitalization or just showing off your public school "chops."

I think the Texas 9/11 Truthers meeting is down the hall. It follows the Fake Moon Landing discussion.

[liquid_cool]

Well, this also stems from a new law that just went into action in Florida. It allows a person who legally owns a firearm to keep it in their car even while at work. Gotta love Florida for the retirees screwing up elections and gun toten' good ol' boys and their guns.

there was an incodent here in vegas last year...a man in bed called cops saying someone smashed his sliding glass window and was in his house..the cops asked him if he could defend himself if needed , and if he had a firearm..the man replyed.."i dont believe in guns!"..the man was found beaten to death by a golf club the thief found in the garage when police arrived 40 minutes later...thats rite..40 minuts later...so you can keep bashin gun owners..but i guarantee!..that someone breakin into my house..wont be beating me to death with my own golf clubs...allso..i forget the town..i think it was in Iowa..the city commition was puzzled with what to do with all the crime in there city..one commitioner had an idea to make it a law that every citezen of the city of leagal age carry a gun..at the time crime was up 65% -vs- the previous year..after the law went into effect 60 months later..crime fell to only 3% of the previous years total of crimes..the following year..1%..so ya..ban all guns for leagal citizens..and the only people with them..will be the cops..and the crooks!

[dblanehopr]

You lose all credibility right from the get go. 13,000 murders. But why let facts get in the way.

You're all over the road with this post. Are you just too lazy to use punctuation and capitalization or just showing off your public school "chops."

I think the Texas 9/11 Truthers meeting is down the hall. It follows the Fake Moon Landing discussion.

quite possibly the fkn number was supposed to be 1300. either way, it was by memory, not by me giving a fk enough to research sht to make some ahole like you happy. but i guess you missed the part about me saying that i'm not going to act like this is some fkn termend college exam i'm trying to prepare for.

i'm just typing sht. not tryna act like a pompous fkhed.

and the murder statistic is off that movie with the fat guy with glasses talking about how idiodic americans can be when it comes to daily living and what they don't even realize about their own lifestyles...

i wasn't trying to write you a fkng dissertation, so if your brain has trouble following, it's cuz you've got something stuck up your a$$ too far. even gay guys have limits.... learn yours.

see... you're not the only one that knows how to be a dkhed.

good question to ask would be if you've ever been in a debate without having to insult your opposing opinions?

sorry... i guess it's just fkn retarded to me to think that one guy with a razor that grew up in the fkn desert with fkn sheep doesn't normally know how to fly a 747 good enough to fly it into a building on the first shot...

not to mention that noone on the plane stopped a couple guys with razors...

and the videos with the explosions going downthe building....

but i don't expect any patriotic dmbsht to actually question his government like his forefathers did... even though that same person would use their words to try and win an argument.

handguns are not rifles..

handguns are what murders are committed with..

all i need is a rifle and shotgun to protect the house....

if there were no handguns, all i'd need is a knife to protect myself outside of the house...

knives are regulated...

it doesn't take a fkn genius to see that there's a backwardass reason to allow handguns to be everywhere in america.

[liquid_cool]

i wont quote ya but..in the declaration of the united states..there is a line declaring the rite to bare arms to "Overthow the government should it nolonger be for the people or presumes to use its wieght to opress its people"..sompin like that..so that is what the founders ment by the "Rite to bare Arms..should our government ever try to hold us captive by the wieght of the goverment and or laws unlawfully against the constitution..then we as citizens have a duity to overthow that government and reconstitute that government for the people as the founders intended...its allso meant to defend our homessteads and property..but thats another discussion.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

CHOO CHOO, This thread is going places!

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »quite possibly the fkn number was supposed to be 1300. either way, it was by memory, not by me giving a fk enough to research sht to make some ahole like you happy. but i guess you missed the part about me saying that i'm not going to act like this is some fkn termend college exam i'm trying to prepare for.i'm just typing sht. not tryna act like a pompous fkhed.[/quote]You're right, you're typing s***. Try putting some effort into it. You're not texting your college buddies here.

Quote »and the murder statistic is off that movie with the fat guy with glasses talking about how idiodic americans can be when it comes to daily living and what they don't even realize about their own lifestyles...[/quote]You expect anything that guy says to be true about anything? I heard his fauxumentaries are doing great in Peoria, though.

Quote »i wasn't trying to write you a fkng dissertation, so if your brain has trouble following, it's cuz you've got something stuck up your a$$ too far. even gay guys have limits.... learn yours.[/quote]Hey, you want to spill your personal beans here, go right ahead. Does your boyfriend know this?

Quote »see... you're not the only one that knows how to be a dkhed.[/quote]Yeah, but at least I can spell it.

Quote »good question to ask would be if you've ever been in a debate without having to insult your opposing opinions?[/quote]Now how are we going to debate when you can't even type, spell or make the most minimal effort to have a modicum of sentence structure? Nah, you'd just shortcut it with your typical liberal catch phrases. All that was missing was "Chimpeachment!"

Quote »sorry... i guess it's just fkn retarded to me to think that one guy with a razor that grew up in the fkn desert with fkn sheep doesn't normally know how to fly a 747 good enough to fly it into a building on the first shot...

not to mention that noone on the plane stopped a couple guys with razors...[/quote]So true. Unfortunately, because we have now groups of politically correct ninnies who throw a tantrum anytime a glance is cast toward a "person of color, ethnicity or background" no matter what the security risk. So the security and safety of the citizens of this country was breached in the name of cultural diversity. Perhaps, if we just talked to them.

Quote »and the videos with the explosions going downthe building.... [/quote]Oh, indeed! Compelling! Personally, I think it was the man on the grassy knoll behind all this. He, or Gumby.

I know your personal spokesman (yes, I said spokesMAN) Rosie O'Donnell believes this, too. Who's the new president of the Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists this year? Alec Baldwin? No wait, Matt Damon! Lofty credentials, there I tell ya.

Quote »but i don't expect any patriotic dmbsht to actually question his government like his forefathers did... even though that same person would use their words to try and win an argument.[/quote]Oh, indeed I do. I'm sure you and all your libtard moonbat friends are chanting "'Bama, 'Bama Go Away! Racist, Sexist Anti-Gay!" in front of the White House right now. And of course, you're not making posters of Obama looking like Curious George (which he remarkably resembles) because you already did that schtick with the previous president. Hell, you even called him The Chimp.

But I know you and all those free thinkers will be demanding to redress your grievances with the government! As soon as you illegally download songs to your Ipod, consume vast quantities of white guilt, and attend the Left handed, Rainbow, Gender Neutral, Multi Diversiplicity, Save Our Clouds Rally.

Quote »handguns are not rifles..[/quote]This is going to come as a BIG surprise to the local biathlon team.

Quote »handguns are what murders are committed with..[/quote]Handguns are also what self defense killings are committed with.

Quote »all i need is a rifle and shotgun to protect the house....

if there were no handguns, all i'd need is a knife to protect myself outside of the house...[/quote]And if my Aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. I just thank God you and your ilk weren't around when the constitution was written. Otherwise, we'd be fighting for our freedom with bumper stickers and gourmet coffee.

Quote »knives are regulated...[/quote]I know. Billy Mays has to show ID before the taping of every show when he hawks one of those knive sets.

Quote »it doesn't take a fkn genius to see that there's a backwardass reason to allow handguns to be everywhere in america.[/quote]Indeed. One question, though. How is it possible that all these shootings on college campuses keep occuring? I mean, aren't they "Gun Free Zones?"

[C-Kwik]

Of course this assumes that further (or less) regulation is the answer. I do not think it is. I think the answer is do nothing at all. No amount of regulation or deregulation will make the majority of people happy. Criminals will have guns regardless of whether weapons are outlawed and people will die regardless of whether weapons are outlawed. So probably best to just leave well enough alone. Regulation will only make one group or the other upset, all the while none of the problems perceived to be related to guns have been solved.

I'm pretty sure one group wants more regulation. So leaving well enough alone simply appeases the anti-gun control group. Which makes only one group happy.

My thought is that neither side should be fully satisfied. Being on essentially polar opposite views, there is no way for both groups to get what they want completely. That said, I do think there is some common ground where both groups can get a reasonable amount of what they want. Dismissing the plausability of this is why we can't find such common ground in the first place. To suggest that we dismiss the attempt because common ground can't be found simply perpetuates the issue. Its the chicken or the egg conundrum.

i wont quote ya but..in the declaration of the united states..there is a line declaring the rite to bare arms to "Overthow the government should it nolonger be for the people or presumes to use its wieght to opress its people"..sompin like that..so that is what the founders ment by the "Rite to bare Arms..should our government ever try to hold us captive by the wieght of the goverment and or laws unlawfully against the constitution..then we as citizens have a duity to overthow that government and reconstitute that government for the people as the founders intended...its allso meant to defend our homessteads and property..but thats another discussion.

The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution. The Declaration does not outline our rights. Its a statement made by the colonies that they are independent from Britain and outlines a laundry list of reasons why. It has no direct bearing on the Constitution itself. And the only place the Declaration even mentions anything about bearing arms is in the laundry list where they point out about the King of Britain:

"He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands."

The line about "overthrowing" the government occurs in the first paragraph and actually states:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

If you're going to try and quote or interpret something, make sure you understand its context first.

I think this view sums up mine pretty well:

"The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation, between unreasonable unfettered ownership and unreasonable prior restraint. Gun ownership is indeed a right — but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."

Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

The source expands on the view quite a bit.

[C-Kwik]

DO NOT RESORT TO PERSONAL ATTACKS! THIS APPLIES TO EVERYONE.

Read the rules for the politics forum:

zerothread/320940

And do not respond to this with any kind of a "he started it" attitude.

but i guess you missed the part about me saying that i'm not going to act like this is some fkn termend college exam i'm trying to prepare for.

Writing a disclaimer does not excuse poor grammar. Attempt proper grammer. We're not grading you on it, but this is a forum for serious discussion. IT IS easier to read and understand proper grammer. Just because this is on the internet doesn't mean its acceptable to write you like on MySpace. The reason your English teachers tried to teach proper writing is because it works. Communicating effectively through writing requires reasonable structure. There is a reason people take well composed articles much more seriously than internet blogs. Cut down on the foul language as well. It comes off as hostile. This IS NOT the place for it.

Further, if anyone cannot follow the rules for the politics forum, see yourself out of it. Otherwise we will do it for you. Period.

[hsckris]

I'm pretty sure one group wants more regulation. So leaving well enough alone simply appeases the anti-gun control group. Which makes only one group happy.

My thought is that neither side should be fully satisfied. Being on essentially polar opposite views, there is no way for both groups to get what they want completely. That said, I do think there is some common ground where both groups can get a reasonable amount of what they want. Dismissing the plausability of this is why we can't find such common ground in the first place.

Naturally it appeases the pro gun more, at least in theory. I'm pro-gun... so no real surprise there. The reason I advocated doing nothing goes deeper. As I said, guns will be in the hands of criminals regardless. People will die regardless. Additional regulation (or even deregulation) will not serve the stated goals of gun control (i.e. crime prevention, safer society, etc.). Therefore, additional regulations are not justified. Let me clarify. Additional regulations such as higher taxation of weapons or ammo with no jusitifiable cause, restriction on the kind or nature of weapon or use without justifiable cause, etc. are the regulations that will be ineffectual and therefore serve to do nothing more than anger pro-gun folks. Additional regulations regarding eduction of gun owners or children, perhaps time, place, or manner restrictions (assuming they are strongly related to some legitimate purpose), limiting uneducated children's access, etc. would probably be fine by either side and not what I am referring to.

To suggest that we dismiss the attempt because common ground can't be found sim. ply perpetuates the issue. Its the chicken or the egg conundrum.

I think we are at common ground. Gun owners can own a variety of weapons, with some reasonable restrictions. They can carry to protect themselves, but cannot legally fire without the right to do so... which generally requires a serious threat to the owner's life. At the same time, gun owners cannot carry into schools, places that serve alcohol, while under any influence, etc. (this is state to state, but most states have similar provisions). Further, gun owners cannot use a weapon to threaten or intimidate without facing liability. And as I said, further regulation or deregulation will not serve the stated ends of gun control. In my opinion that makes it irrelevant and therefore unnecessary.

If it truly is the chicken and the egg, there is no good discussing it. We'll never know.

[audtatious]

quite possibly the fkn

It you can't respond without fkn-this or fkn-that then I suggest you go back to the college conspiracy forum.

[Cold_Zero]

quite possibly the fkn number was supposed to be 1300. either way, it was by memory, not by me giving a fk enough to research sht to make some ahole like you happy. but i guess you missed the part about me saying that i'm not going to act like this is some fkn termend college exam i'm trying to prepare for.

i'm just typing sht. not tryna act like a pompous fkhed.

and the murder statistic is off that movie with the fat guy with glasses talking about how idiodic americans can be when it comes to daily living and what they don't even realize about their own lifestyles...

i wasn't trying to write you a fkng dissertation, so if your brain has trouble following, it's cuz you've got something stuck up your a$$ too far. even gay guys have limits.... learn yours.

see... you're not the only one that knows how to be a dkhed.

good question to ask would be if you've ever been in a debate without having to insult your opposing opinions?

sorry... i guess it's just fkn retarded to me to think that one guy with a razor that grew up in the fkn desert with fkn sheep doesn't normally know how to fly a 747 good enough to fly it into a building on the first shot...

not to mention that noone on the plane stopped a couple guys with razors...

and the videos with the explosions going downthe building....

but i don't expect any patriotic dmbsht to actually question his government like his forefathers did... even though that same person would use their words to try and win an argument.

handguns are not rifles..

handguns are what murders are committed with..

all i need is a rifle and shotgun to protect the house....

if there were no handguns, all i'd need is a knife to protect myself outside of the house...

knives are regulated...

it doesn't take a fkn genius to see that there's a backwardass reason to allow handguns to be everywhere in america.

Just incase the prior warnings from the two Staff members were not blatantly obvious; this is your first and final warning that you are in violation of this sub forums rules:

2) Debate your position. If you are incapable of debating or someone has proven you wrong, do not resort to name calling nor other childish behavior

4) Personal attacks means you lose.....and may result in a ban

7) Flaming, bashing or trolling. A good rule of thumb here is, "if you don't have anything nice / constructive to say, don't say anything." NICO prides itself on being a safe place for all people (newbies and veterans) to learn and share a common interest.

While we love have everyone around here in the politics section, due to the nature of this sub forum and the leniency that is granted in regards to the subject matter that is discussed, we need to enforce these rules a little more strict than in other sections of NICO. If you have an issue with this policy, I suggest that you feel free to either contact the NICO staff to discuss the matter, or you are always free to disengage in this sub forum (politics) and pursue your happiness in the other sub forums.Otherwise, we look forward to your point of view and contributions.Bud

[Cold_Zero]

i don't have a problem understanding where some Canadians get their opinions.... especially since Detroit and the Canadian city across the lake **can't remember thename** ...have very very very different levels of crime... 3 murders in the Canadian city one year vs. the 13000 or so in Detroit... and the 3 murderers were from Detroit.

Maybe if the United States exporting its crime tweaks the Canadians so much they should take a cue from the US and build a fence along our border and give Americans a hard time trying to enter Canada. I am sure that is going to fix all of their crime problems.

Quote »i would really like to be able to not have some fkr use a weapon as intimidation....

furthermore i think it's fkn retarded that i'm not allowed to carry around a sword or large knives, but i'm fully legal to carry around a 45.[/quote]I would highly suggest that you run for local or state government and put yourself in a position to write laws that allow for conceal or open carrying of swords and large knives. The difference between the carrying of swords/knives and carrying handguns is that States will certify, license and administration the activity of its citizenry carrying handguns. To my knowledge there does not exist the same process for carrying swords and large knives in public.

Quote »it's retarded, and no amount of pompous random american insults are going to change that line of common sense... but America doesn't run of fkn common sense, more like pop culture and bs.[/quote]meh

Quote »he doesn't sound crazy for saying that 9/11 was most likely a coverup. sounds a lot more rational than some low-level educated cavedwellers knowing how to fly a 747 and being able to take it over with a razorblade.[/quote]Cover-up? Really? You would be referring to the Bush Administration, perpetrating an operation of this scale and then covering it up? This is the same administration that made everyone run around and proclaim that they are incompetent in handling the War in Iraq, Katrina and the Global War on Terror? The same Administration that couldn’t keep Gitmo, Wire Tapping and CIA prisons in Europe quiet?I would not under estimate the so called low-level educated cave dwellers, especially the ones that are Al Qaeda operatives. Since usually they are sent to terrorlst training camps all over the world like the Bekaa Valley, Northern Africa, Philippines or Eastern Pakistan and network with other deadly terrorlst groups of the world.

[C-Kwik]

Naturally it appeases the pro gun more, at least in theory. I'm pro-gun... so no real surprise there. The reason I advocated doing nothing goes deeper. As I said, guns will be in the hands of criminals regardless. People will die regardless. Additional regulation (or even deregulation) will not serve the stated goals of gun control (i.e. crime prevention, safer society, etc.). Therefore, additional regulations are not justified. Let me clarify. Additional regulations such as higher taxation of weapons or ammo with no jusitifiable cause, restriction on the kind or nature of weapon or use without justifiable cause, etc. are the regulations that will be ineffectual and therefore serve to do nothing more than anger pro-gun folks. Additional regulations regarding eduction of gun owners or children, perhaps time, place, or manner restrictions (assuming they are strongly related to some legitimate purpose), limiting uneducated children's access, etc. would probably be fine by either side and not what I am referring to.

Yes, known criminals will get their hands on guns. But how do they do it? Chances are, they are stolen guns. And while we can't prevent all theft, consider that I've worked in the insurance industry and have seen many cases of theft in the home. While it was not my specialty, I spoke with people in that department and spent a few months in it myself. In any case, gun theft was fairly common. And what is scary is that most either didn't keep their guns locked at all or in nothing more than a small lockbox (Like a cash box).

Just so you're clear on my position, I like guns. I've shot a few of them and they are fun. I may own a few someday. But I do believe in regulation.

These ineffectual means of regulation you speak of are the reason this topic needs to be discussed more thoroughly. It is much more difficult to find a better solution if noone works towards it. While the issue itself is polarizing, the solution doesn't necessarily need to be. But if we don't have the discussions in detail, then its more likely that the results will be.

I think we are at common ground. Gun owners can own a variety of weapons, with some reasonable restrictions. They can carry to protect themselves, but cannot legally fire without the right to do so... which generally requires a serious threat to the owner's life. At the same time, gun owners cannot carry into schools, places that serve alcohol, while under any influence, etc. (this is state to state, but most states have similar provisions). Further, gun owners cannot use a weapon to threaten or intimidate without facing liability. And as I said, further regulation or deregulation will not serve the stated ends of gun control. In my opinion that makes it irrelevant and therefore unnecessary.

Consequences also do not end gun violence. Either someone is compelled to use the gun or is not. Sure, consequences do have some effect as people under reasonable circumstances do not want to pay a fine or go to jail. But the fact is people are still purposefully killed and wounded by guns, which point out there there are people and circumstances under which people are compelled to shoot their guns at other people.

Sure, people may still murder, but guns represent a very effective tool for killing. They have range and precision and many have a good deal of rounds to retry the shot again if they miss. Most other types of weapons have very limited capabilities in one form or other. A lot of hand combat weapons (knives, bats, etc) would require close range and potentially repeated strikes. And last I checked, it can be rather hard to strike someone with such a weapon if the target is running or fighting back.

If it truly is the chicken and the egg, there is no good discussing it. We'll never know.

The chicken or the egg reference was not made about the gun control issue in general. It was directed at the apathetic approach you brought up. Which is not reality, but rather away of looking at this that perpetuates the apathy. Take yourself out of that frame of mind and it can become much easier to see that there can be discussions and perhaps viable solutions can be reached.

[hsckris]

Yes, known criminals will get their hands on guns. But how do they do it? Chances are, they are stolen guns. And while we can't prevent all theft, consider that I've worked in the insurance industry and have seen many cases of theft in the home. While it was not my specialty, I spoke with people in that department and spent a few months in it myself. In any case, gun theft was fairly common. And what is scary is that most either didn't keep their guns locked at all or in nothing more than a small lockbox (Like a cash box).

You can't fix stupid. Punishing smart gun owners because stupid gun owners allow their guns to be stolen is NOT a viable answer. If you take away the legal right to guns, the so-called 'black market' will further develop to meet the demand of criminals. Its simple supply and demand. Some are willing to break the law in order to make a buck -- and will do so in the case of outlawed weapons. If you aren't advocating a full outlaw, then what level of regulation do you propose? My point all along has been that no amount of regulation or deregulation will fully solve the perceived problem, hence any regulation would be irrelevant and therefore unnecessary. This is of course again assuming we are not talking about regulations related to things like the safety of children, etc.

Just so you're clear on my position, I like guns. I've shot a few of them and they are fun. I may own a few someday. But I do believe in regulation.

Well, you've got step 1 right, likign guns. Step 2 would be to recognize that further regulation is futile and will do nothing to achieve an end of more peace or safety. T

These ineffectual means of regulation you speak of are the reason this topic needs to be discussed more thoroughly. It is much more difficult to find a better solution if noone works towards it. While the issue itself is polarizing, the solution doesn't necessarily need to be. But if we don't have the discussions in detail, then its more likely that the results will be.

You are assuming that there needs to be a solution. In my opinion guns are not the problem. I know it is cliche -- but people kill people. That won't change. Guns may or may not make it easier to do so, but IIRC most places that have a higher gun ownership % actually have less crime & murder than places that don't. I've seen figures on this before, I just don't have them right now and I'm too lazy to look them up.

Consequences also do not end gun violence. Either someone is compelled to use the gun or is not. Sure, consequences do have some effect as people under reasonable circumstances do not want to pay a fine or go to jail. But the fact is people are still purposefully killed and wounded by guns, which point out there there are people and circumstances under which people are compelled to shoot their guns at other people.

Consequences are the best the law can do. The law will not punish preemptively. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution prohibits a full ban. People will always be purposefully killed (and accidentally killed for that matter), baring some sort of Minority Report situation. In my opinion guns do not lead to additional deaths. The same people who were going to kill, did kill. They just used a gun or didn't. Perhaps they were more effective, but they would've attempted eitehr way. Besides, most of them would find a way to get a gun regardless of what regulations are or are not in place. Honestly, any further regulation would have to grandfather in existing guns. There is no way people would consent to give up the guns they already have. This amount of weapons alone is likely a sufficient supply for criminals to obtain or steal regardless of any future regulations.

Sure, people may still murder, but guns represent a very effective tool for killing. They have range and precision and many have a good deal of rounds to retry the shot again if they miss. Most other types of weapons have very limited capabilities in one form or other. A lot of hand combat weapons (knives, bats, etc) would require close range and potentially repeated strikes. And last I checked, it can be rather hard to strike someone with such a weapon if the target is running or fighting back.

See above. Also, what are you advoacting? No guns? That isn't going to happen. If there are any guns, where do you draw the line? Fact is there is no good place -- the choice will have to be arbitrary.

The chicken or the egg reference was not made about the gun control issue in general. It was directed at the apathetic approach you brought up. Which is not reality, but rather away of looking at this that perpetuates the apathy. Take yourself out of that frame of mind and it can become much easier to see that there can be discussions and perhaps viable solutions can be reached.

You say tomato, I say tomato. I was making jest -- saying if it really is chicken or the egg, what you say it is (or what you say I say it is) then it doesn't matter...

[Ginsu]

In my opinion guns do not lead to additional deaths. The same people who were going to kill, did kill. They just used a gun or didn't. Perhaps they were more effective, but they would've attempted eitehr way. Besides, most of them would find a way to get a gun regardless of what regulations are or are not in place.

In terms of serious criminals who plan heists, break-in's, murders, etc, you're absolutely right. But what about ordinary people in heated moments of clouded judgment, such as the situation in the original post? If there were no gun nearby, would someone have died, or would there just be broken noses and vented frustrations? Then again, I'm not sure how many of these instances really occur.

[hsckris]

In terms of serious criminals who plan heists, break-in's, murders, etc, you're absolutely right. But what about ordinary people in heated moments of clouded judgment, such as the situation in the original post? If there were no gun nearby, would someone have died, or would there just be broken noses and vented frustrations? Then again, I'm not sure how many of these instances really occur.

There is an obvious proof problem with any argument of this kind. THere is no accurate, quantifiable, or legitimate way to determine whether or not guns did or did not escalate the situation or the outcome.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »In terms of serious criminals who plan heists, break-in's, murders, etc, you're absolutely right. But what about ordinary people in heated moments of clouded judgment, such as the situation in the original post? If there were no gun nearby, would someone have died, or would there just be broken noses and vented frustrations? Then again, I'm not sure how many of these instances really occur.[/quote]And therein lies the crux. We don't know. This argument could be used for kitchen knives, hammers, baseball bats and hundreds of other objects that can be used "in the heat of the moment."

To deny law abiding citizens the right to arms because of the possibility of theoretical scenarios regarding something that COULD happen does not warrant withholding those rights to people who stay within the bounds of the law.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Yes, known criminals will get their hands on guns. But how do they do it? Chances are, they are stolen guns. And while we can't prevent all theft, consider that I've worked in the insurance industry and have seen many cases of theft in the home. While it was not my specialty, I spoke with people in that department and spent a few months in it myself. In any case, gun theft was fairly common. And what is scary is that most either didn't keep their guns locked at all or in nothing more than a small lockbox (Like a cash box).

Just so you're clear on my position, I like guns. I've shot a few of them and they are fun. I may own a few someday. But I do believe in regulation.

These ineffectual means of regulation you speak of are the reason this topic needs to be discussed more thoroughly. It is much more difficult to find a better solution if noone works towards it. While the issue itself is polarizing, the solution doesn't necessarily need to be. But if we don't have the discussions in detail, then its more likely that the results will be.

[/quote]What more regulation is needed that is not clearly written in existing federal and state statutes?

[C-Kwik]

You can't fix stupid. Punishing smart gun owners because stupid gun owners allow their guns to be stolen is NOT a viable answer. If you take away the legal right to guns, the so-called 'black market' will further develop to meet the demand of criminals. Its simple supply and demand. Some are willing to break the law in order to make a buck -- and will do so in the case of outlawed weapons. If you aren't advocating a full outlaw, then what level of regulation do you propose? My point all along has been that no amount of regulation or deregulation will fully solve the perceived problem, hence any regulation would be irrelevant and therefore unnecessary. This is of course again assuming we are not talking about regulations related to things like the safety of children, etc.

Nope, you can't fix stupid, but you can minimize its reach and effects. Consider if guns became less and less easy to steal. Sure, the black market would still be available. But as supply and demand dictates, if there are less guns the black market can get a hold of the more expensive the guns they sell will become. That puts greater strains on individuals seeking to purchase a gun on the black market.

Well, you've got step 1 right, likign guns. Step 2 would be to recognize that further regulation is futile and will do nothing to achieve an end of more peace or safety. T

This is typical of a once sided argument. One side doesn't wish to even discuss the possibility that there is a solution. So rather than commit to the possibility of such, they withdraw from the table entirely. The way I see it, gun enthusiasts should be seeking to limit gun ownership to those who are determined to be competent and responsible. By helping to decrease gun related deaths, it makes it much easier for people to be more sympathetic to gun owners. Think of it in terms of street racing and people who are simply enthusiasts. The enthusiasts get a bad name because of street racers. If enthusiasts proactively try to eliminate street racing and its negative impacts, then it becomes much easier to be more accepting of enthusiasts.

You are assuming that there needs to be a solution. In my opinion guns are not the problem. I know it is cliche -- but people kill people. That won't change. Guns may or may not make it easier to do so, but IIRC most places that have a higher gun ownership % actually have less crime & murder than places that don't. I've seen figures on this before, I just don't have them right now and I'm too lazy to look them up.

Absolutely, people kill people. But, as I said, the effectieness of a firearm is vastly greater than other typically available weapons. The odds of survival become greater when guns aren't in the picture. Why? Because so long as I can outrun a guy holding a bat or a knife, there is little chance that the assailant can hit me with it. A gun can hit me at a distance, whether I'm simply out of range of hand weapons or trying to run from the shooter. If I can dodge 1 single arrow from a crossbow, I bought myself time to get out of the situation as the shooter will have to reload. With a gun, the shooter typically has several shots. Even a bad shot can get lucky with enough rounds shot out. There is clear logic involved here. Not an assumption by any means.

Consequences are the best the law can do. The law will not punish preemptively. The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution prohibits a full ban. People will always be purposefully killed (and accidentally killed for that matter), baring some sort of Minority Report situation. In my opinion guns do not lead to additional deaths. The same people who were going to kill, did kill. They just used a gun or didn't. Perhaps they were more effective, but they would've attempted eitehr way. Besides, most of them would find a way to get a gun regardless of what regulations are or are not in place. Honestly, any further regulation would have to grandfather in existing guns. There is no way people would consent to give up the guns they already have. This amount of weapons alone is likely a sufficient supply for criminals to obtain or steal regardless of any future regulations.

No. As with driving, we can proactively keep people off the roads who have not demonstrated the ability to drive a vehicle (via tests; albeit minimal). Surely, someone can choose to drive anyways, but does that mean we should just stop regulating the rules of the road or who gets to drive? How about we just start allowing everyone to drive drunk since people drink and drive anyways?

See above. Also, what are you advoacting? No guns? That isn't going to happen. If there are any guns, where do you draw the line? Fact is there is no good place -- the choice will have to be arbitrary.

Never said I was advocating no guns. In fact, if you read carefully, I've been somwhere in the middle all along. Just because someone is for gun regulation does not mean they are for an all out ban. If someone argues that an all out ban is necessary, I'd make similar arguments. My main point all along is that noone is truly trying to find an amicable solution.

You say tomato, I say tomato. I was making jest -- saying if it really is chicken or the egg, what you say it is (or what you say I say it is) then it doesn't matter...

You're still missing the point. The argument you posed was that because there is no way to find an amicable solution, then we shouldn't bother trying. And the problem with that is that if we simply believe that is true, then we can never investigate and discuss the solution. Which brings us back to square one. The argument and your reasoning for it perpetuate each other....like the chicken and the egg. If you understood this correctly, you'ld see I was never talking about a tomato in the first place.

[C-Kwik]

What more regulation is needed that is not clearly written in existing federal and state statutes?

How do we know what steps can be taken if there is no open and contiuous dialog about it. My contention all along has been that both sides tend to shut down on this type of topic. Rather than discuss and seek solutions to real problems, they simply defend their position by any means possible. No matter how applicable it is to them on a personal level. Case in point, how many people who use the argument about the right to bear arms in terms of defending itself against the government actually buy guns for that purpose? Personally, I'm mush more concerned with the real reasons gun owners buy guns and would like to protect those specific interests as best I can. But if they choose not to discuss it openly and honestly, then what dialogue can occur?

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »How do we know what steps can be taken if there is no open and contiuous dialog about it. My contention all along has been that both sides tend to shut down on this type of topic. Rather than discuss and seek solutions to real problems, they simply defend their position by any means possible. No matter how applicable it is to them on a personal level. Case in point, how many people who use the argument about the right to bear arms in terms of defending itself against the government actually buy guns for that purpose? Personally, I'm mush more concerned with the real reasons gun owners buy guns and would like to protect those specific interests as best I can. But if they choose not to discuss it openly and honestly, then what dialogue can occur? [/quote]You didn't answer my question. This issue HAS been discussed and the courts recently ruled to force the district to essentially give back the right they took away. How many gun laws are enough?

You're saying there needs to be more dialogue? About what? What hasn't been covered? What is an anti gun person going to discuss besides even more regulation?

That is the issue. It has been beaten to death and there comes a point to leave well enough alone. You can discuss till the cows come home and you'll be at the same starting point.

I went through this during my college years. Professors in my classes asking the questions no one bothered to ask because the question was irrelevant or ridiculous. We discussed it and it ended up as one of those "What's became before the universe" discussions. Sometimes there just no point. Each side has felt they have given enough.

I know I do. In fact I think we've given too much and want some back. But it's to that point now where even reasoned people just say "enough."

We have enough gun laws. We have enough regulation. There is NO utopia and no absolutely safe world. People get hurt. People die. The guy who would shoot his wife in a heated argument is the guy who is going to kill her with another blunt object if it's there.

It's like trying to have discourse with an Al Queda member. He would slit your throat if the opportunity came about no matter how much discussion you had with him. It's a waste of time.

Look at the posts on this thread. We have Canadians spewing ridiculous anti American propaganda without any reference of facts or experience. Their ignorance is immense. Where are they getting their information from? Certainly not any reasonable, reliable source because it's full of fabrication, exaggeration, outright lies and misinformation.

So now I'm looked at as the "arrogant American" because these people are too lazy and/or stupid to get the facts straight. They have been brainwashed by the liberal press and don't know fact from fiction. They border the same country that would protect them in a heartbeat and criticize they very same country that would save their elitist little keister.

Many of these same people make up the gun control crowd. They don't want to listen to facts or reason. They just want to inject fear and hysteria among people and demonize handguns.

It's like the college massacres of recent. Everyone asks "How can we prevent it? The simple answer is YOU CAN'T. The long term, often discussed and highly researched answer is YOU CAN'T.

Gun Free Zones are just a feel good notion and they don't do ANYTHING to prevent innocent student from being gunned down by a crazed killer. There are evil people in the world. That's the issue that people just don't want to believe.

[bobotech]

This is typical of a once sided argument. One side doesn't wish to even discuss the possibility that there is a solution. So rather than commit to the possibility of such, they withdraw from the table entirely. The way I see it, gun enthusiasts should be seeking to limit gun ownership to those who are determined to be competent and responsible. By helping to decrease gun related deaths, it makes it much easier for people to be more sympathetic to gun owners. Think of it in terms of street racing and people who are simply enthusiasts. The enthusiasts get a bad name because of street racers. If enthusiasts proactively try to eliminate street racing and its negative impacts, then it becomes much easier to be more accepting of enthusiasts.

I should not be penalized for owning a gun in any way. It is not my problem that a bad guy can own a gun but please don't put stupid arbitrary laws in place that do nothing but make my hobby more expensive and hard to persue (like mag capacity limits, "assault" rifle bans, ammo limits, ammo etching, "waiting periods", etc). The ONLY thing those laws do is make my LEGAL gun ownership harder and more expensive.

Those laws do NOTHING to the criminal.

I am not a law enforcement person, so it is not my duty to prevent criminals from owning guns.