The Great Gun Debate

[BigJim13]

And nobody is taking your rights away, just trying to put reasonable limits on them as despicable as you may find that.

I have said right along my solution will never fly, so if your debating me on that, I'm not sure we are debating the same thing.

 

[MCDavis]

They're not going to try to ban them all at once. They're going to take the low hanging fruit. they have already basically taken full auto for the most part. Next is semi, then hand guns, then pumps, then anything with more than a single shot, etc.

Because yours and others restrict rights, and i don't respect ideas that restrict rights. My opinion doesn't restrict rights.

So, based on the above posts between you and I, you would prefer that all weapons be available to all people, regardless of the weapon?

And I do hate that you feel that way about opinions. I can always respect your opinions as yours, and respect you for standing up for them, even when I don't agree with them. I think that goes back to freedom of speech.

 

[eclark53520]

So, based on the above posts between you and I, you would prefer that all weapons be available to all people, regardless of the weapon?

And I do hate that you feel that way about opinions. I can always respect your opinions as yours, and respect you for standing up for them, even when I don't agree with them. I think that goes back to freedom of speech.

Yes, if you can afford it you should be able to own it.

I respect you as a friend, as a person.
I respect your opinion as yours. However, I don't respect that ideal that your opinion represents.

 

[eclark53520]

And nobody is taking your rights away, just trying to put reasonable limits on them as despicable as you may find that.

I have said right along my solution will never fly, so if your debating me on that, I'm not sure we are debating the same thing.

Reasonable limits have already been imposed. Even unreasonable limits have already been imposed.

They don't work, criminals don't follow them, nor will any further restrictions on guns.

 

[BigJim13]

They're not going to try to ban them all at once. They're going to take the low hanging fruit. they have already basically taken full auto for the most part. Next is semi, then hand guns, then pumps, then anything with more than a single shot, etc.

Because yours and others restrict rights, and i don't respect ideas that restrict rights. My opinion doesn't restrict rights.

Single shot weapons were what was most widely available at the time the constitution was written correct?

I would say this, reasonable limits on rights are necessary. I respect your passion for guns but I'm not sure there is much more to debate at this point.

 

[MCDavis]

Yes, if you can afford it you should be able to own it.

Here, we'll have to disagree. Frankly, I don't need you owning a missle launcher: I'd never get away cleanly from your house again!! Seriously, when it comes to weapons, I just don't agree with this due to the extreme examples I've already made. I know some crazy rich people...last thing any of them needs is a machine gun.

I respect you as a friend, as a person.

I respect your opinion as yours. However, I don't respect that ideal that your opinion represents.

This is a very fair statement, and perfectly understandable given what you've said.

 

[MCDavis]

They don't work, criminals don't follow them, nor will any further restrictions on guns.

This is where I have conflict: I agree 100% with this statement, but I would still not be upset with full autos being banned. I realize that seems/is hypcritical, and I don't mean it to be.

 

[Wi-Golfer]

These guys have it going on Mini Guns, Anti aircraft guns, etc...damn that's cool.

 

[eclark53520]

Here, we'll have to disagree. Frankly, I don't need you owning a missle launcher: I'd never get away cleanly from your house again!! Seriously, when it comes to weapons, I just don't agree with this due to the extreme examples I've already made. I know some crazy rich people...last thing any of them needs is a machine gun.



This is a very fair statement, and perfectly understandable given what you've said.

Listen, that's just my ideal. I understand that's never going happen and in society there needs to be some movement from ideals.

I think the current crop of laws besides the full auto ban is livable. I don't believe that banning or restricting more firearms is going to benefit society in any way. Obviously the gun free zones haven't worked, i think we should get rid of them. We need to empower good people to take their own safety seriously and teach criminals that their prey is willing and able to protect itself.

Other than that Im pretty happy with the way things are.

 

[MCDavis]

In my ideal, this debate wouldn't be necessary as we wouldn't need to arm ourselves. We all know that ain't happening!

My wife (a teacher) and I have discussed this idea that's floating around now about arming teachers. She's against it, and she's not against guns. She sees too many ways a student could get hurt or killed. She would never do it.

I'm partially for it: I have no issue with training teachers THAT ARE WILLING to be armed, but the training would have to be strict, practice time would have to be recorded and frequent, and they'd have to be willing to do this with no additional pay (to keep some who are on the fence from doing it just for the money). I still see ways this could hurt or kill an innocent child, but I think it's certainly worth looking into.

I can't tell you how much it pains me to know that it's come to the point that I feel that way.

 

[BigJim13]

In my ideal, this debate wouldn't be necessary as we wouldn't need to arm ourselves. We all know that ain't happening!

My wife (a teacher) and I have discussed this idea that's floating around now about arming teachers. She's against it, and she's not against guns. She sees too many ways a student could get hurt or killed. She would never do it.

I'm partially for it: I have no issue with training teachers THAT ARE WILLING to be armed, but the training would have to be strict, practice time would have to be recorded and frequent, and they'd have to be willing to do this with no additional pay (to keep some who are on the fence from doing it just for the money). I still see ways this could hurt or kill an innocent child, but I think it's certainly worth looking into.

I can't tell you how much it pains me to know that it's come to the point that I feel that way.

I personally don't like the idea of arming teachers. It's sad that our discussions as a country have led us here. I guess if anything I would prefer an armed police officer or something similar to be in the school.

 

[MCDavis]

I personally don't like the idea of arming teachers. It's sad that our discussions as a country have led us here. I guess if anything I would prefer an armed police officer or something similar to be in the school.

We have those now, Jim. At least, we do here. Along with metal detectors. And I live in a small, basically rural county in NC.

 

[BigJim13]

I think it also needs to be reiterated that I respect everybody's opinion and value all members of this forum.

We have at times become heated and frustrated with each other but for the most part stayed civil.

 

[BigJim13]

We have those now, Jim. At least, we do here. Along with metal detectors. And I live in a small, basically rural county in NC.

Was there an armed guard in Sandy Hook?

Here in VT I don't think any of our schools have metal detectors and honestly am not sure if any have armed guards.

 

[MCDavis]

I don't know. I do know that the high schools and middle schools (not sure about elementary) here have SRO's (school resource officers) who carry badges and guns. There are also metal detectors that get used for sporting events.

The big debate here is the Sheriff's office wants to take control of the SRO's so they answer to law enforcement instead of to the school board or principal.