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

[liquid_cool]

So that no one gets the wrong idea, when the New Orleans Police Department was rounding up these firearms, it wasn't as if they were storing them (firearms) in evidence lockers so that they could be returned to their owners after the disaster. It took the NRA filing a federal lawsuit to get the New Orleans PD to stop the confiscation order, return the weapons to their rightful owner and pay the owners if the firearms could not be found. The majority of the firearms were either taken home by police officers (stolen) or they were stored in big bins outside, which caused the firearms to rust and rendered them destroyed. I think what infuriates me the most is that the Police in NO engaged in theft against the people they were sworn to serve and protect.

amazing point cold..but this can be taken further...they ingage in theft dayly by writing B.S. traffic violations and forcing citizens to pay "bail" before proof of violation occured...its one big scam...and another form of taxation..what happend to days when the police were looked upon as idols by our youth?..now they are feared and hated by common citizens..its no longer "To Protect And Serve"..its now "To Tax And Confiscate"

[C-Kwik]

what your not considering sir is that many people work late hours..i ashure you im no kid on myspace as for my credibility..well as you follow some of the post's here,you will find me no dummie..

You're still whining about this? Look. I asked you to read what I had said in context. If you did that, you'ld have seen it was directed towards someone other than you. Would I like to see you use better grammer? Sure. But its not bannable in that of itself and for the most part, I can comprehend what you are trying to say. (albeit, it is more difficult to read through your post than most others' here). So move on. If you have further beef with this, my email address is in my profile. The discussion about grammer is getting way off topic.

[C-Kwik]

I couldn't agree more. Seeing as how that was over two decades ago, I have a lot of real world experience along with my college degree.

When I say discussed I mean previous discussions over the years have yielded legislation, laws and regulations and court decisions regarding guns.

Perhaps. But arguments from then don't necessarily apply to the world now. Circumstances are always changing with time.

However, my point is still that we should keep the discussion open. Whether on the floor of the Congress or here. Keep in mind, this forum isn't going to be able to make policy. We virtually have no power. But we discuss political matters. All I trend to see from you on this topic is your attempt to squash the discussion. Perhaps for your own interests. But suppose I am wrong, then wouldn't it be more fruitful to have the discussion and show me such?

Our laws are based on those discussions which, hopefully, reasonable people and legislators write statutes based upon good intent and the will of their constituents. Within the bounds of the constitution, of course.

While it is important we try to uphold the Constitution, as a matter of discussion, we should always consider every potential solution and its possible outcomes (good or bad) to seek the best course of action. If you want to specifically argue the Constitutionality of a law, then sure, I can be more specific. But I am seeking ways to reduce gun crimes and criminal access to guns. I don't much care what responsible owners do. I do care what irresponsible owners do. I understand balancing these things are difficult. And probably outside of knowledge and expertise of the members of this forum to solve. But few good solutions to a problem are happened upon without lengthy discussion. The Bill of Rights itself was a contentious matter in that of itself during its conception.

And I have based my experiences on the ability to defend life. Life that may have been lost if not for the right to have a firearm. The lives lost from a gun that you mentioned, there's another side. Many of the innocent gun deaths could have been prevented.

I agree there are. But again, for me its a matter of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. As it stands, its not impossible for someone to get a hold of a gun if they wanted to.

No one with a concealed carry permit had a firearm when the Virginia Tech shootings occured. Just the shooter. Again the criminal had the gun. The law abiding citizen did not. So since the law abiding citizen follows the law, even though he could carry and risk breaking the law, he did not. Because that's what law abiding citizens do. But the criminal does whatever he wants.

Then again, if we start allowing people to be armed everywhere, who is to say people won't start shooting each other? Last I checked, there are many incidents where both parties are armed and they shoot at each other. Gang wars for instance. Police shootouts are another. Nothing can be viewed in a vacuum. According to Julius Wachtel, a former ATF agent, 14-18% of recovered guns were recovered from the people who bought them at retail (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... chtel.html). Which means many legitimate buyers end up in some kind of a criminal element such that their gun becomes recovered. A first time murderer isn't actually a criminal until he commits a crime.

And the criminal KNOWS that there's little or no chance someone will have a gun to defend themselves because there is a "Gun Free Zone." Fish in a barrel. "Gun Free Zones" don't apply to people who break the law. The criminal has nothing to worry about and can do a lot of killing because no one can defend themselves.

Not every criminal has the intent to kill. Many know that a gun strikes fear. The very same fear that might prevent a crime is the one that allows them to use a gun for it. So regardless of if they have the capacity to kill, its still a tool that can be used to effect a crime (robbery perhaps). The threat of force is a powerful force in both directions.

Had responsible citizens who carry guns all the time, have training, and value freedom been allowed to carry on the campus, maybe someone could have killed the shooter and saved lives. It's easy to see why one would pick out a school to do a shooting. No one will fire back because of a misguided gun law.

So how do we pick who is responsible? THIS is the conundrum.

This is the trade off in living in a free society. There is risk because of the freedoms we cherish. But when you remove those freedoms for safety, you lose both. You lose the safety you sought and the freedoms of law abiding citizens.

I respect and cherish freedom dearly. But I don't see how we can put more value on owning guns than the lives of those who die by them.

So the criminal has more freedom, the law abiding citizen, less. It is easy to see why he would pick a college campus to kill people.

He likely didn't choose the school as a target becuase it was easy. It seems to me it was a deep-rooted personal issue. Enough that he knew in his mind that it the event would be the last thing he does in his life. It could have been any number of public places.

I think I have given up enough of my liberties and freedom because gun control advocates want more restrictions, not less. That will mean less freedom, less safety.

And to think that there couldn't be militias in the future, I wouldn't take that bet. Anything can change in the future. Natural disasters, epic events and revolutions all bring about this.

Hurricane Katrina caused widespread panic and a few days of chaos. Lootings, shootings, pretty much every man for themselves until order was restored. And what did government do? They instructed law enforcement to demand owners of guns to give those up until order was restored. Even though they cannot, it's unconstitutional, and it reduces the safety of the citizenry. It is precisely moments like these that people need their right to keep and bear arms.

Again, you view such a thing in a vacuum. Who the heck knows what the result would be had they not rounded up the guns. Further, I have to wonder how many of the guns that were confiscated were in the hands of their legal owners at the time and how many of those were being used to commit crimes in the aftermath of Katrina. According to a moderator here who was actually down in the area in the aftermath, they were shooting at our armed forces too. Maybe it was a bad decision, maybe it wasn't. But someone made the call. And its an easy call to make when you consider that the intent of the decision was likely to try and save lives. Afterall, the rights of gun owners were rather small in comparison to the major disaster that was going on at the time. Save the armchair quarterbacking for Monday Night Football.

So to think that militias and people rebelling against their government couldn't happen today is naive or foolish. It would be unlikely, but there's always that possibility. The founding fathers may have been more wise than we already think they are.

Anything is possible. But my point about the militia argument is that noone is actually arming themselves for such a reason. Unless your name is David Koresh. Ultimately though, I think the discussions could go much smoother if people stopped hiding behind the Constitution to defend their right to own a gun and simply state the reasons they actually own them. The 2nd amendment already establishes a right (though its interpretation is always in debate). But if we are to find an amicable solution, then we need to try and preserve the rights in a way that helps keep gun owners happy while trying to appease those that feel that they are a problem. While there tends to be a fundamental difference in that once side contends guns are the cause and the other sayd the guns are the solution, it would seem to me that one side is simply saying "my mommy said its okay so nyeh." and trying to end any discussion...

[Bubs daddy]

I view things in a vacuum? On the contrary, maybe it's because you live in California that has your viewpoints so different than mine. My background and experience allows me to make commentary from real world encounters.

Quote »Perhaps. But arguments from then don't necessarily apply to the world now. Circumstances are always changing with time.

However, my point is still that we should keep the discussion open. Whether on the floor of the Congress or here. Keep in mind, this forum isn't going to be able to make policy. We virtually have no power. But we discuss political matters. All I trend to see from you on this topic is your attempt to squash the discussion. Perhaps for your own interests. But suppose I am wrong, then wouldn't it be more fruitful to have the discussion and show me such? [/quote]I completely disagree. The arguments from then apply to now more than ever. The discussion is open but there's no changing your mind and no changing mine. How am I quashing discussion? You're free to discuss this anytime. But I completely disagree with most of your points. I am trying to show you that your arguments hold little merit but you keep using hypotheticals to support your argument.

Quote »While it is important we try to uphold the Constitution, as a matter of discussion, we should always consider every potential solution and its possible outcomes (good or bad) to seek the best course of action. If you want to specifically argue the Constitutionality of a law, then sure, I can be more specific. But I am seeking ways to reduce gun crimes and criminal access to guns. I don't much care what responsible owners do. I do care what irresponsible owners do. I understand balancing these things are difficult. And probably outside of knowledge and expertise of the members of this forum to solve. But few good solutions to a problem are happened upon without lengthy discussion. The Bill of Rights itself was a contentious matter in that of itself during its conception.[/quote]Important? I'm glad you think upholding the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution is important. I don't seek ways to restrict the freedom and RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I don't want any more gun crimes than you do. I don't know anyone who does.

Again, I feel that there are enough federal and state statutes already in place. You're trying to cure the symptom, not the illness. I would think say that fatherless children who have no supervision have far more to do with gun violence that any gun laws.

If you care about what irresponsible owners do, why do you want to inhibit the rights of responsible owners?

People have been discussing poverty for hundreds of years. There's more poverty now than ever. You would think with all that discussion that poverty would be "solved" by now. So how come more people are in poverty than ever? I have an answer. Personal choices.

Contentious as it may have been, it is our Bill of Rights.Quote »I agree there are. But again, for me its a matter of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. As it stands, its not impossible for someone to get a hold of a gun if they wanted to. [/quote]And what is your proposed solution? It's not impossible to get drugs yet those are illegal. It is a free society. Part of being a free society is the risk of someone running around with a gun killing innocents because the citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. You don't restrict the rights of the citizen, you punish the offender.Quote »Then again, if we start allowing people to be armed everywhere, who is to say people won't start shooting each other? Last I checked, there are many incidents where both parties are armed and they shoot at each other. Gang wars for instance. Police shootouts are another. Nothing can be viewed in a vacuum. According to Julius Wachtel, a former ATF agent, 14-18% of recovered guns were recovered from the people who bought them at retail (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... chtel.html). Which means many legitimate buyers end up in some kind of a criminal element such that their gun becomes recovered. A first time murderer isn't actually a criminal until he commits a crime[/quote]What if? And what if an asteroid hits the earth? What argument is that? That myth has long been shattered.

In Arizona, we shop, drive, do business and enjoy recreational activities with guns all the time. Yes, tens of thousands of Arizonans walk around with guns. ALL THE TIME. In fact, you wouldn't know who's armed around you. In a typical shopping trip, you can be sure there are at least a dozen or so people armed.

But criminals already walk around with guns, don't they. Especially in California. Per capita, is the murder rate in AZ higher than in CA?

Gangs mostly kill other gang members. Good riddance as far as I'm concerned.

So now, because most people can't get a gun permit in CA, only criminals have guns. So innocent, law abiding citizes can't defend themselves. But not the liberal politicians that support these gun laws. They have armed security.

More talk about vacuums. I'm not sure why you keep saying this. I live in the real world as you. Except maybe in CA, people elsewhere have the right to defend themselves. In Arizona, people can carry concealed or unconcealed. Yes, Arizona is a "Shall issue" state for concealed carry.

It's also in our state constitution that the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired. In Arizona, "Shall issue" means you cannot be denied a permit if you qualify under A.R.S. 13-3112 or are otherwise not a prohibited possessor. They cannot deny it to you because some Sheriff in some county says no. You can get a concealed permit even though you're a resident of California.

We are also an open carry state. You could open carry here. Holster a firearm and walk into a Circle K. You won't even get a look. Well, except some people. You can tell the people from California who are here. They have this open eye stare. Priceless. Yes, lady. It's a gun. I'm just getting a soda same as you.

Wouldn't you think we have blood running in the streets every day? We don't. Just like other 45 or so states who have permits, the myth of blood running in the streets because people carry guns is just that, a myth.

In fact, it's the cities and states with the most restrictive gun laws that have the most gun deaths. How can people get killed by guns in California when most people aren't permitted to carry guns?

And to your last point, a legitimate buyer can perchase a car and then drink a fifth, killing a family of four. Car crashes cause over 30,000 deaths a year And that's not even a right, it's considered a privilege.

Quote »Not every criminal has the intent to kill. Many know that a gun strikes fear. The very same fear that might prevent a crime is the one that allows them to use a gun for it. So regardless of if they have the capacity to kill, its still a tool that can be used to effect a crime (robbery perhaps). The threat of force is a powerful force in both directions.

[/quote]So because a gun strikes fear, my rights should be suspended? So because the force is so powerful, the law abiding citizen is the one to have their rights restricted? If it's so powerful, why would you want to give the edge to the criminal?Quote »So how do we pick who is responsible? THIS is the conundrum.[/quote]No, it's the price of a free society. It's not a conundrum. It's a conundrum when you restrict the right of the citizen to defend themselves against those who would do them harm.

Again, almost 40,000 are killed in cars every year. Because we live in a free society and mathmatical probablity, cars going in opposite directions just mere inches from each other are going to result in death and injury. It's the price of the freedom of driving a car.Quote »He likely didn't choose the school as a target becuase it was easy. It seems to me it was a deep-rooted personal issue. Enough that he knew in his mind that it the event would be the last thing he does in his life. It could have been any number of public places.

[/quote]You're right. It could have been any number of places. But since schools have the feel good "gun free zone" it certainly doesn't allow other students or faculty the ability to defend themselves because only he has a gun. No one else.

He could walk into the McDonalds and do the same thing. Or a school bus stop. Or a grocery store. Or a thousand other places. So how are gun deaths going to be reduced if only the shooter has the gun and no one else has one to defend themselves?

I would offer that in Arizona, people think twice before doing something like that because the chances are, someone else is armed too. Of course in California, the criminal can shoot anyone anywhere because he knows that very few law abiding citizens can carry a gun. So they can't defend themselves.

Quote » Again, you view such a thing in a vacuum. Who the heck knows what the result would be had they not rounded up the guns. Further, I have to wonder how many of the guns that were confiscated were in the hands of their legal owners at the time and how many of those were being used to commit crimes in the aftermath of Katrina. According to a moderator here who was actually down in the area in the aftermath, they were shooting at our armed forces too. Maybe it was a bad decision, maybe it wasn't. But someone made the call. And its an easy call to make when you consider that the intent of the decision was likely to try and save lives. Afterall, the rights of gun owners were rather small in comparison to the major disaster that was going on at the time. Save the armchair quarterbacking for Monday Night Football.

[/quote]My comments are based not from some vacuum but of a breadth and scope of real world experiences and situations. Situations that I know of all too well because I have lived it.

Sorry but the ignorance of this comment just strains incredulity. So citizens are supposed give up their arms in a time of panic, disaster, and chaos? This is the time when they are needed most. Police weren't to be found in many places. Why do you think there was looting right there on the TV? Because there was no police presence. So at the time when law enforcement is at its weakest, you want thugs to own the streets and a man without the means to protect their childen and wife?

This is stupefying and boggles the mind. If they are shooting at law enforcement, what do you think they will do with unarmed citizens?

This call WAS an easy call and the city settled because they knew they would lose and that it was the wrong decision. You cannot remove the right to keep and bear arms just because the mayor or police chief say so.

You state you want to discuss the issue and then state that I'm "arm chair quarterbacking."

Sure seems like you don't want discussion. Sounds like you want to restrict guns in every way possible. You don't want people carrying guns.

Quote »Anything is possible. But my point about the militia argument is that noone is actually arming themselves for such a reason. Unless your name is David Koresh. Ultimately though, I think the discussions could go much smoother if people stopped hiding behind the Constitution to defend their right to own a gun and simply state the reasons they actually own them. The 2nd amendment already establishes a right (though its interpretation is always in debate). But if we are to find an amicable solution, then we need to try and preserve the rights in a way that helps keep gun owners happy while trying to appease those that feel that they are a problem. While there tends to be a fundamental difference in that once side contends guns are the cause and the other sayd the guns are the solution, it would seem to me that one side is simply saying "my mommy said its okay so nyeh." and trying to end any discussion...

[/quote]They don't have to be arming themselves for a militia. But they have the right to. Because David Koresh did what he did you're comparing that to the right of citizens to keep and bear arms? I'm not understanding your point.

Hiding behind the constitution? Do you hear yourself? My reasons for owning a gun are mine and mine only. The 2nd amendment affirms that right. Should people state the REAL reasons and instead self incriminate in a court? Free speech?

Again, you want gun owners to give up rights because criminals use guns to take lives. You don't want an amicable solution. You want a perfect society. A society without gun deaths. Well, I've got some bad news.
Modified by Bubs daddy at 7:19 PM 2/28/2009