Which do you support most and why? (Select 1 or more)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
I believe that gun owners who do not keep their guns properly secured and in their possession at all times, should be held liable for anything that happens to anyone else, by anyone else. Naturally there is robberies, muggings and such, that a criminal can take a law abiding citizens gun away, I realize that There are millions of accidental deaths, by car, by alcohol, legal drugs...question is, how do we control all of that too?
Do you hold the automobile manufacturer or dealer responsible when their vehicles are involved in the death of an individual?

Do you hold the distiller or brewer responsible when their product is involved in the death of an individual?

Let's be brutally honest: a purpose, if not the purpose, of a firearm is to kill something. Yes, I understand sporting guns used for target practice, but many of them can also kill people, even if that isn't their primary use. So the term "accidental" when applied to a firearm can be rather misleading. If the gun discharges absent intent of use by the operator, that truly is an "accident"; pretty much any other instance of discharge is using the firearm as intended.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
This has been an interesting conversation so far. So here is some additional information. As a student of the Constitution and some of the thoughts of the people behind it, the 2nd amendment was to allow the Citizens to keep their government honest. This brings up the debate of: is it better for citizens to freely have guns or not? The left seems to think that banning guns will prevent people from being killed. Here they mention things like children getting hold of the guns and shooting themselves or others, the cases of crazy people shooting up schools or movie theatres, etc. But they leave out the biggest gun crimes of all time. I will only mention 2 but they are doozies. Hitler prevented the Jews from owning guns and then killed millions who at that point had no way to defend themselves. Stalin banned guns from his own citizens and millions died. So would it have been better to have been armed or not armed?
In the context used by the writers of the Constitution, "militia" was understood to be comprised of every able-bodied adult male, and so the mention of "a well-regulated militia" means those able-bodies adult males who would turn out- with their firearms- in the case of an emergency. This well predates the concept of a "National Guard", so any comparisons to that body are not historically sound.

And you are absolutely correct: an armed citizenry was intended to serve as perhaps the ultimate "check and balance" against a tyrannical and out-of-control Federal government. One of the first steps in cowering a population is to disarm them, which is why you see most leftist/socialist governments taking steps to disarm their citizens.

Finally, there's a very easy to grasp reason why so many psychopaths target individuals in gun-free zones. While some have the ultimate goal of dying at the hands of the police, they want to take as many innocent lives with them as they possibly can, and the possibility that some of the might be armed and thus capable of defending themselves must be minimized. So they go where the guns aren't.
 
Heroin, cars, trains, cigarettes, etc don't kill people either. It takes the action of a person to make it happen. Using the same logic used earlier: you have never seen a bag get up and walk into a school and kill anyone. All things can kill people when used improperly, including coconuts. I am a gun owner myself but I do think we need to have tighter regulations on the ownership of guns and better punishments when the guns are used improperly. I have been hunting and saw a guy come into the hunting area with a brand new rifle, a brand new 4-wheeler, and a brand new hunting outfit (you could still smell the new on them). This guy was probably in his 40's and in my opinion did not need to be in the area. He was a walking accident waiting to happen.
 

Mustapha00

Well-Known Member
This might do damage to my reputation as a "conservatarian", but I'd have no problem with requiring some degree of firearms training as part of the licensing process. After all, merely being able to buy a car does not give you the legal basis to drive it. The state insists that you undergo a test to see if you are reasonably proficient in its operation. That would seem to be, to me, adequate precedent for doing something similar with firearms.
 

Flyingmadman

New Member
This post resembles Donald Trump at his press conference ... knows nothing, makes ridiculous false claims, has poor logic skills, attacks everyone who actually does know something and is able to reason their way out of a paper bag, etc. Prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Here are some true statements: Guns are weapons that are sometimes used by people to kill other people. Guns are weapons that sometimes accidentally kill people through misuse. Far more people are killed by guns than by coconuts; in fact, far more people are killed by guns wielded by toddlers than by coconuts. More good guys are killed by guns than bad guys.
Drunk drivers, People who drive whlie text or talking on cell phones and People who speed all kill more people than people with guns..... What next we going to ban cars or trucks? People need to step up and assume accountablity for their actions .... I had a friend get a DUI while riding a horse home from bar....WTH ?! The world is going plum crazy just turn on the news....
 
I've been reading all the discussions here but it's obvious many of you seem to either ignore the facts or aren't aware of them. Let me explain... (caution this is a long read but worth it)

First of all, some of you try to compare owning a gun to driving a car. While it's true the gun or car itself doesn't kill people, it's the actions of the person using it that does. However, remember that owning guns is a right specified in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. Driving a car is a privilege. While society seems to believe that driving a car of public roads is a right - it isn't. There is no law that says the government can't stop you from driving a car on public roads. There is a law (a Constitutional Amendment no less) that says the government can't stop you from bearing arms. Shall not be infringed is being infringed.

However, society as a whole has determined there are some people that should not be allowed to own and possess guns. Simply because they are a danger to society. So their right is infringed but you won't find anyone, even a hardcore 2nd Amendment supporter, that believes someone mentally insane should be allowed to possess a gun. The vast majority of people believe that gun owners should be required to pass a background check to prevent them from purchasing a gun legally if they are an obvious threat to society. We accept that infringement.

Yet, even criminals or mentally unstable people can possess a driver's license. In reality, that is weapon if the person wants to use it for that reason. We see ISIS telling their terrorists to use vehicles as weapons. We've already seen instances around the world where they did just that. It's almost impossible to stop them until it's too late unless you capture the person before they can commit the act.

Where anti-gun people step way over the line is selectively deciding which guns are Ok and which ones aren't. Prime example is an AR-15. They call it an assault rifle but it isn't. One of the primary characteristics on an assault rifle is selective fire. An AR-15 does not have that ability since it's only designed to be semi-automatic. Yes, an AR-15 can be converted to fully automatic but that is illegal. Some anti-gun people argue "but it can be converted". It's a weak argument because almost any semi-automatic weapon, with the right tools, can be made to be fully automatic.

Banning different types of guns is not a solution. It only impacts law abiding citizens because criminals will violate the law anyway. Using the excuse, "well if AR-15s are banned, less people will get killed" falls short because if someone is intent of killing scores of people, they will find other weapons. Believe it or not there are politicians that want to ban "assault weapons" (remember that they misuse the term) because they look SCARY. I kid you not. Google it. Even Nancy Pelosi herself made that comment.

However, of the more that 11,000 gun homicides each year, only about 350 involve rifles and of these only a fraction involve semiautomatic or assault rifles. So in the scheme of things, banning AR-15s is a tiny drop in the bucket. This would not be a problem if there were only a small number of them owned by citizens, but there are millions of AR-15s out there.

Lastly, the bottom line is that anti-gun advocates want to punish millions of Americans for the actions of a small few. Imagine if they wanted to ban pickup trucks, impacting millions of Americans, based on the actions of a few that used pickup trucks to kill people. People would think that's absurd yet they don't realize it's the same exact thing. Punishing all for the actions of a small few. Does that make any sense at all?
 

Stephen Longshanks

Forum Moderator
You are right, ozzonelayyer, that a gun and a car should not be compared, but you are wrong on why. A car's main purpose is transportation, while a gun's main purpose is to kill living things. Therefore, it is a gross misuse of a car to use it to kill someone, but entirely in line with its purpose to use a gun for the same reason. And, yes, both of them are responsible for accidental deaths. Too many from both.

The other thing is that gun supporters like to partially quote the 2nd Amendment, always ignoring this part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". When this was written, there was no thought of a professional, standing army for the new country. There was a military structure, but it depended on State militias for manpower. This is much different from how it is today. The argument that the 2nd Amendment was talking about us protecting ourselves from our own government is ludicrous for two reasons. The first is the original intent of the founders, which is clear in the wording, "being necessary to the security of a free State". Not security from the state. The other reason it is ludicrous is that no amount of AR-15s, whether semi- or full automatic, is going to be able to stand up against the U.S. military, should it be used against us. The only way to assure that it isn't used against us is to use the voting rights we have to put people in office that stand up for the people of the U.S., and not just the rich and powerful, like the gun manufacturers' lobby.
 

Konrad the mediocre

Well-Known Member
I've been reading all the discussions here but it's obvious many of you seem to either ignore the facts or aren't aware of them. Let me explain... (caution this is a long read but worth it)

First of all, some of you try to compare owning a gun to driving a car. While it's true the gun or car itself doesn't kill people, it's the actions of the person using it that does. However, remember that owning guns is a right specified in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
You mean the right to keep and bear arms, right? The constitution doesn't specify what kind of arms one may possess (can I have a nuclear bomb?) and that's up to the courts (e.g. assault rifle bans). I agree that cars and guns are not a good analogy but not for the reasons you state. Using one as a model to regulate the other would be monumentally stupid.

Lastly, the bottom line is that anti-gun advocates want to punish millions of Americans for the actions of a small few. Imagine if they wanted to ban pickup trucks, impacting millions of Americans, based on the actions of a few that used pickup trucks to kill people. People would think that's absurd yet they don't realize it's the same exact thing. Punishing all for the actions of a small few. Does that make any sense at all?
Most laws on the books are added for this very reason. Not much of an argument.

You are right, ozzonelayyer, that a gun and a car should not be compared, but you are wrong on why. A car's main purpose is transportation, while a gun's main purpose is to kill living things. Therefore, it is a gross misuse of a car to use it to kill someone, but entirely in line with its purpose to use a gun for the same reason. And, yes, both of them are responsible for accidental deaths. Too many from both.

The other thing is that gun supporters like to partially quote the 2nd Amendment, always ignoring this part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". When this was written, there was no thought of a professional, standing army for the new country. There was a military structure, but it depended on State militias for manpower. This is much different from how it is today. The argument that the 2nd Amendment was talking about us protecting ourselves from our own government is ludicrous for two reasons. The first is the original intent of the founders, which is clear in the wording, "being necessary to the security of a free State". Not security from the state. The other reason it is ludicrous is that no amount of AR-15s, whether semi- or full automatic, is going to be able to stand up against the U.S. military, should it be used against us. The only way to assure that it isn't used against us is to use the voting rights we have to put people in office that stand up for the people of the U.S., and not just the rich and powerful, like the gun manufacturers' lobby.
I'm not sure why any of this matters. The 2nd amendment gives the right to the people, not people in militias. Sure the 2nd amendment is an anachronism (as are other parts of the constitution) but there's only one way to change it. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
Stephen,

You present valid arguments about the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, our founders wrote the laws being a little vague in some ways and specific in others. To be quite honest, I've never researched why they added the first part. I supposed they felt it was necessary to explain why. Maybe they felt hunting and self-defense wasn't a good enough reason to make it a right. Remember that it was written because of what just happened with England. They were trying to take guns away and if they had succeeded, we wouldn't be the United States of America today. At least not in the way we know it.

However, I will disagree with you about the part only being for threats outside our own government. Technically OUR government was England before we declared independence. It was not a foreign government. The English king was our king. We were only a colony. It was only when OUR government started taxing us without representation and attempted to disarm us is when we finally rebelled. Even then it wasn't unanimous primarily because a lot of colonists didn't believe we could beat the most power military in the world with only shopkeepers and farmers. It took a lot of guts for our founding fathers to declare independence knowing full well that we were declaring war.

So I believe a free state also means that even our own government can turn against us and that's a primary reason for the 2nd Amendment. My proof? Very simple. Read the oath our military service members are required to say.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Notice we aren't defending our government, we are defending the Constitution. Also, enemies can be in our country as well. Yes, before you point to the part about obeying the orders of the President and officers above me, remember that an unlawful order can be disobeyed if it violates the Constitution (or the UCMJ).

So, our government can become our enemy if they ignore the Constitution or don't change it according to established law.
 

Flyingmadman

New Member
The bottom line is just about anything can be used as a weapon to hurt, mane, or kill.... people need to accept responsibility for their actions and stop blaming objects.. Most people who misuse things for which they for intended for ..are usually not wired right in the head or a sandwich short of a picnic basket... yes accidents do happen all the time but sometime people just dont think.... as far as guns are concerned I believe in the right to protect ones self by any means including the rights of the 2nd amendment. . I live in a very high criminal active city Los Angeles I do protect myself thats all i have to say..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.