The Great Gun Debate

[FATC1TY]

Edit 1-just noticed I worked my points from the bottom up off your list, my first point addressed your last! Sorry!


So my question would be this, what of the points mentioned above actually still apply today?

1. Slavery is outlawed
2. We have our own police force whether it be a constible or acutal Police dept.
3. you could make a case for self defense
4. I would say that surpressing insurection would fall to the national guard or local police.
5. repelling an invasion-you could make that argument as well but in today's world whatever country invades us is going to be less worried about me and my hunting rifle than the US Army with an M1 tank.
6. Deterring an undemocratic govt, see my point above. You going after the US Govt with you 30-06, they come at you with an Apache-game over.

I guess your just tearing it apart more than it needs to be. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution, while amended, weren't founded when our armies had helicopters, and the like. Point is, the 2A was founded on those principles, and stand for those.

[BigJim13]

I guess your just tearing it apart more than it needs to be. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution, while amended, weren't founded when our armies had helicopters, and the like. Point is, the 2A was founded on those principles, and stand for those.

I know, I guess my point or better my question is this: Since the 2nd Amendment was based on the need for a militia, why does the argument get changed to people needing to own whatever type of weapon they want?

Does the 2nd Amendment give me the RIGHT to own a missile launcher? An Apache? An AK-47 for that matter?

**For the record, I could care less if people want guns or own them or hunt with them-whatever I am just curious at this point, playing devil's advocate a bit**

[FATC1TY]

Shooting clays is great fun and one of the best stress relievers I have ever found.

Banning guns is kinda a silly argument, its not going to happen, it would be like asking to ban Alcohol or Tobacco, to much $$ involved in it to just do away with it.

The fact of the matter is that no matter how many laws are on the books the guys walking around committing crimes are still going to be able to get guns. I don't know that having a gun in every house makes it safer though...

Sure it makes it safer.. If you were going to commit a home invasion, and decided that the blue house on the corner looked good, if you knew that MOST people had guns in their homes, wouldn't you think twice about kicking the door in? I certainly would, and I can't even fathom committing such a crime.

The quote that "an armed society, is a polite society" is extremely true.

People who hate guns, hate the idea that someone has a tool, so powerful that it could change lives. Anything could end a life, but they feel so belittled by the idea, that they want no one to have the power that they fear so much. The people that fear being shot by some "maniac" with a gun on his hip, have no more room to argue paranoia than the very guy they fear and ridicule for carrying one.

The other point that people over look, is that it's statistically proven that those licensed to carry a firearm, commit little to NO crime involving their weapons. Infact, they even went as far as to show that they had cleaner criminal/backgrounds that most police and public servants.

[BigJim13]

Sure it makes it safer.. If you were going to commit a home invasion, and decided that the blue house on the corner looked good, if you knew that MOST people had guns in their homes, wouldn't you think twice about kicking the door in? I certainly would, and I can't even fathom committing such a crime.

The quote that "an armed society, is a polite society" is extremely true.

People who hate guns, hate the idea that someone has a tool, so powerful that it could change lives. Anything could end a life, but they feel so belittled by the idea, that they want no one to have the power that they fear so much. The people that fear being shot by some "maniac" with a gun on his hip, have no more room to argue paranoia than the very guy they fear and ridicule for carrying one.

The other point that people over look, is that it's statistically proven that those licensed to carry a firearm, commit little to NO crime involving their weapons. Infact, they even went as far as to show that they had cleaner criminal/backgrounds that most police and public servants.

I'm not afraid of guns or people that own them. What scares me about having a gun in every home is that that brings more potential for accidents to happen. Once the trigger is pulled on a loaded gun you can't take it back. I guess what it comes down to for me is trust. I don't trust that there are enough people out there that would be responsible with their guns. I can just imagine reading stories or hearing on the news about a kid that killed another kid because they found their fathers pistol that just happened to be loaded. That is the kind of thing that bothers me, not gun ownership-irresponsible gun ownership and that is the real X factor. Nobody knows or can put a number on the irresponsible people out there and that is why I am not comfortable going with the "every home needs a gun" theory.

[FATC1TY]

I know, I guess my point or better my question is this: Since the 2nd Amendment was based on the need for a militia, why does the argument get changed to people needing to own whatever type of weapon they want?

Does the 2nd Amendment give me the RIGHT to own a missile launcher? An Apache? An AK-47 for that matter?

**For the record, I could care less if people want guns or own them or hunt with them-whatever I am just curious at this point, playing devil's advocate a bit**

Yes, the 2A gives you right to own all of that should you choose. Now, you probably won't get a fully loaded Apache, but I've seen them for sale, and I know a guy who bought a reburb that was demilitarized. Missile launcher probably not, but I'm sure if you knew some scum on the black market, you could. The same way I can't buy military grade heavy munitions. The point is that it wasn't solely founded on a militia.. It's a bit broader, at which your ignoring despite the info provided.

AK47? Certainly.. I think everyone should atleast own one. They are cheap as dirt, and shoot anything you feed them.

Just because you have the right, doesn't mean it's all inclusive and available, I see what your saying. Your taking some extremes and not being realistic.

Do you want a .50 BMG? You can get it. Do you want to build a AR15? You can get it. Do you want a M1 Garande from the war? You can get it. AK74? Sure, why not.. Want a silencer for your AR15? Pay the tax stamp, fill out the paperwork, and get the signatures and wait. You can get that too.

[BigJim13]

Yes, the 2A gives you right to own all of that should you choose. Now, you probably won't get a fully loaded Apache, but I've seen them for sale, and I know a guy who bought a reburb that was demilitarized. Missile launcher probably not, but I'm sure if you knew some scum on the black market, you could. The same way I can't buy military grade heavy munitions. The point is that it wasn't solely founded on a militia.. It's a bit broader, at which your ignoring despite the info provided.

AK47? Certainly.. I think everyone should atleast own one. They are cheap as dirt, and shoot anything you feed them.

Just because you have the right, doesn't mean it's all inclusive and available, I see what your saying. Your taking some extremes and not being realistic.

Do you want a .50 BMG? You can get it. Do you want to build a AR15? You can get it. Do you want a M1 Garande from the war? You can get it. AK74? Sure, why not.. Want a silencer for your AR15? Pay the tax stamp, fill out the paperwork, and get the signatures and wait. You can get that too.

I know, and to some extent that's my point. Some of my statements were very unrealistic but really what do you need an AR15 with a silencer for?

[FATC1TY]

I'm not afraid of guns or people that own them. What scares me about having a gun in every home is that that brings more potential for accidents to happen. Once the trigger is pulled on a loaded gun you can't take it back. I guess what it comes down to for me is trust. I don't trust that there are enough people out there that would be responsible with their guns. I can just imagine reading stories or hearing on the news about a kid that killed another kid because they found their fathers pistol that just happened to be loaded. That is the kind of thing that bothers me, not gun ownership-irresponsible gun ownership and that is the real X factor. Nobody knows or can put a number on the irresponsible people out there and that is why I am not comfortable going with the "every home needs a gun" theory.

Completely agree. I won't argue the concrete foundation of your post, but understand this, and try and detach from it if you will.

Accidents happen, but like I posted before.. Pools.. Kids can fall into pools.. They can play in the backyard when parents are at work, and drown. They can bump their heads and pass out underwater. But people put in safety measures.. Such as fences and gates around pools, or better yet.. If they have a pool, they teach their children to stay out with supervision, and they also teach them how to swim.

It's no different than the people who have gun in their homes, and they lock them up. They teach the kids in the house to leave guns alone, not to touch, and if they are loaded to never touch them and find an adult. They might also teach their kids how to respect a gun, and shoot a gun. It goes a long way to take the curiosity out, and show them the responsibility involved.

The argument that the idiot worries me is such a broad stroke. What about the idiot speeding through the construction zone? The retard on the bike in the middle of the city who just ran the red light in front of you? What about the guy who has a dog that shits in your yard? It's all irresponsible, and wreckless. From serious to petty, it goes a long ways. You'll always have idiots that do stuff like DUI, and then speed down the wrong way of the road...On those terms, should be ban cars in cities that allow alcohol to be sold? What about the people who use drugs, or even prescription drugs? They are far more prevalent than some guy sending a bullet through his house wall into the back deck while screwing with his weapon.

[FATC1TY]

I know, and to some extent that's my point. Some of my statements were very unrealistic but really what do you need an AR15 with a silencer for?

The only people I know who have them, use them for recreation. They have shooting matches in which they have different classes. Iron sights, scopes, silenced and vary the yardage and targets.

People who also have a bunch of land, and shoot on their property, use silencers to be able to shoot outside without the noise. It beats going to the range.

And for what it's worth, 2 of the people I know that have silencers, one is THE Sheriff, and he believes everyone should own one or two silencers because they are fun.

People anti-gun can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that for most people, it's a hobby.. I enjoy target shooting, and doing IDPA matches. Drawing, and going through simulated targets during a time trial. It's fun as hell, much like skeet/clay shooting.

I also know guys who have heavy machine guns, and they all get together once a year, and have a MG outing in the state. People bring old cars, helicopters, tires, barrels, anything you can imagine, and they shoot tracers and just blow stuff up.

Some people like to recycle and invade others freedom, and some like to shoot holes in paper and clay targets.

[Clugnut]

I know, and to some extent that's my point. Some of my statements were very unrealistic but really what do you need an AR15 with a silencer for?

Why do you need a Bugatti Veyron that does 245 mph? Because, under the right circumstances, at an appropriate place, these things can be enjoyed responsibly.

[xamilo]

We should all follow Buddha's teachings and live happily with our own lives without damaging anybody....

No, seriously, I think its a matter of knowing were does your liberty end and the other person's start. If you want to have an F117 or B2 bomber in your garage, be my guest, but should never be used to harm anyone. I know this sounds really really corny and stupid, but its true.

I think shooting doesn't really differ a lot from golf or any accuracy game, but unfortunately, just like Nobel's dynamite, the "original use" was changed through time and changed into a destruction weapon...

[SilverUberXeno]

Are bombs legal? People still manage to get enough of those...

That being said, any argument about what else should be illegal if guns are, or how impractical it would be to try to outlaw guns are not very strong arguments, because they seem to suggest, "Well if it could actually be done, it should be done!"

The vast majority of people are responsible and enjoy the sport of firing guns at targets for exhibition or competition.

If people want to kill people, they will. They don't need guns. See: Oklahoma City; World Trade Center. The argument that people would be safer from crime or death without guns is also weak. People get killed doing absolutely ridiculous things. People bungee jump. People shoot heroine. People fall down elevator shafts. People have been killed by golf balls, I'm sure.

I realize we're talking about something which has the unique purpose of firing a small, deadly object at high speed, and I understand that a gun is a LOT more dangerous than a golf ball. But I'm for education, not regulation. I would never do drugs, but I think they ought to be legal too. I can't think of any situation where MORE government regulation will "solve" a problem without creating a dozen more.

[MIKE1218]

You outlaw guns, and you and I won't be able to get one. Guess what: gangsta drug dealer will still have one. Now when he breaks into your house to steal your shit he kills you because you aren't legally allowed to defend yourself.

Stricter gun regulations only restricts the 2A rights of responsible citizens who aren't going to use a gun to commit violent acts in the first place.

How many cases of licensed concealed carry citizens going nutz and blasting away are there, really? Willing to bet that there are VERY few.

Look at the bomb example SUX brought up: bombs are very illegal, and plenty of people still manage to get and ues them...

[Wi-Golfer]

Let's be like Switzerland & basically require guns to be in every home.

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BigJim13]

The only people I know who have them, use them for recreation. They have shooting matches in which they have different classes. Iron sights, scopes, silenced and vary the yardage and targets.

People who also have a bunch of land, and shoot on their property, use silencers to be able to shoot outside without the noise. It beats going to the range.

And for what it's worth, 2 of the people I know that have silencers, one is THE Sheriff, and he believes everyone should own one or two silencers because they are fun.

People anti-gun can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that for most people, it's a hobby.. I enjoy target shooting, and doing IDPA matches. Drawing, and going through simulated targets during a time trial. It's fun as hell, much like skeet/clay shooting.

I also know guys who have heavy machine guns, and they all get together once a year, and have a MG outing in the state. People bring old cars, helicopters, tires, barrels, anything you can imagine, and they shoot tracers and just blow stuff up.

Some people like to recycle and invade others freedom, and some like to shoot holes in paper and clay targets.

YOu have made very good arguments and frankly I agree with most of your points. I do not own any guns at the moment although have had several in the past. I took a hunters safety course when I was 9 and started hunting that year. I haven't hunted much in the last 10yrs as I took the Ron WHite theory on hunting, "it's cold, it's early and I just don't wanna do it." I have no problem with gun owners or people that shoot for fun, I love to shoot clay pidgeons-that as I said earlier is a great stress reliever. I just think sometimes the 2A gets taken to an extremem in what it protects or allows us.

Why do you need a Bugatti Veyron that does 245 mph? Because, under the right circumstances, at an appropriate place, these things can be enjoyed responsibly.

Another very good point, I almost bought a Sig Sauer .357 semi auto piston while on a trip in Maine a few years ago. My wife put her foot down though. I still would like a decent handgun to shoot, I have never shot a hand gun before or driven at 245 mph.

[JEFF4i]

Good to see people can keep civil on such a ridiculous debate. Gives me hope!

Bottom line with gun rights is that you will get two very seperate, and equally staunch, parties. Both have good points, both cancel eachother out, and no...

Obama isn't taking your guns away. There's not even any notable new legislation to go for it, and it wouldn't pass if it could. Stop playing partisan mud-slinging, it's shameful.