Gun control logic

by Gregor 174 Replies latest social current

• 

  Brother Apostate

  Warlock,

  Amen, brother!

  Heathen,

  Absolutely correct.

  BA- Shout it out!!
• 

  Little Drummer Boy

  I don't want to throw down with anybody on this thread or anything, so please everybody take what I'm about to say like it is intended. - just passin' on a few observations in a nice way...

  I am not taking any side in this issue with this post. It is just that there have been a few threads started since the VA Tech shooting and I have noticed a few consistant misunderstandings. Mostly from outside the US posters, but not all. I'll list them here in this thread since it seems to be the appropriate. I'll be leaving the implications to other posters - I'm not debating just clarrifying some problem undrstandings.

  1) Americans are running rampant and carrying fully automatic military assault rifles.

  This is not true. Only a very small percentage of americans with special permits have those. What we do have is semi-auto rifles that are built on the same platform as their military counterparts. This is a huge distinction. I can not walk into a gun shop and buy an M-16. I can walk into a gun shop and buy an AR-15. They do not have the same function, only the same shape (the trigger group is different). I live in an area where gun ownership is very common. Of the 30 or so people I can think of off the top of my head that own firearms, only 1 has an assault rifle class firearm, and he is a collector, not a nut job. None of his firearms are full auto - he couldn't buy them if he wanted to - he doesn't have the permit for it . As I stated earlier, I am not trying to argue with anyboy over this point, but it is a misconception that has been repeatedly stated on these threads. I am not arguing the rightness or wrongness of owning semi-auto rifles with this point. Clear? Good.

  2) The "Americans do get to legally have guns, and it still didn't help at VA Tech, so you all should ban your guns." line of thought.

  I am sorry to have seen this thought expressed. It shows a basic misunderstanding of how our gun laws work. Once again, I am not arguing for or against banning guns entirely. You see, right or wrong as that thought may be, it just doesn't apply in this case. That school has a no carry policy. Heck, in my state it is a Class A Felony (and that is damned serious to those who don't know) to bring a firearm onto or even near ANY school campus of any kind. We will never know if the students or teachers could have stopped the shooter if someone had been carrying a gun. They legally aren't allowed to. It is a moot point.

  It is like saying 2 + 2 = blue.

  3) " Americans just want guns so they can kill other humans."

  Again, sorry. We are a very, very large country, far larger in sheer topographic size than our British Isle friends (who appear to be the most vocally oppossed to our guns on these threads). We are culturaly diverse and our reasonings on issues swings as wide as our country. We have many reasons for owning firearms. As alleged by those accross the pond, some DO own them for personal protection (shooting other people). That is very true. But, many do so for hunting. Some for target shooting, collecting, clay pigeon shooting, on and on. In my case, I enjoy target shooting when I have the opportunity. But strictly speaking, I own a few firearms because I have to take care of varmints that are common in our area. There is no other practical way to deal with them. There are no resources locally to take care of these kind of things. I have had to do so since I was a teenager. (please animal rights fundies, don't start with me here) We, as a country, tend to be a very "take care of it yourself" kind of place. Again, for right or wrong, that is in our blood. Slightly diverergent, here, but as an interesting point: in WW2, the fighter pilots from a rural US background who hunted to put food on the table were by far the most successful. It was attributed to their ability to "lead" a target. Skills they only learned through years of training on the farm with a rifle.

  Once again, not trying to debate or argue, I just keep seeing these misconceptions popping up. Don't shoot the messanger.
• 

  dawg

  I just want to know why someone can make a post with a complete argument, it makes rational sense but the person replying only argues half of what was posted which makes the orginal argument not sound rational-but in reality its the answer that's irrational? Then after they've completely missed the point someone was making they call that same person names? why does that happen everytime someone posts desention? Again, here's the point, gun control laws aren't unconstitutional... I frearking know that nuclear weapons are "apples and oranges" compared to Uzzis for christs sakes... I was trying to get those who don't believe in gun control laws to see that they're not unconstitutional thats all... I was using hyperbolye to make that point.... what was the writers of the constitution's intent? that's really what this arguemtnis all about....did they intend us to use arms that wern't even invented yet? God god! Are all of you incapaible of reading a post that disagrees with yours with out calling names... I've refrained from name calling up to this point becasue I think calling names on the internet is cowardice, but come on guys-for the love of God! Are you all too damn stupid to get even the most simple point without this utter bull? For the love of every thing sacred can't you at least get the absolute fact that this is a ratonal argument... and you know what? The supreme court agrees with me...

  Now, with that in mind, thank you apostate, you have made a very valuable point and I stand corrected... thank you!
• 

  sammielee24

  I always thought that the original intent of the 'right to bear arms' was so that the people could defend themselves and their state/country. I always thought that this was, in other words, a way to have ready a militia in the USA. Perhaps thats why the issue is so confusing - the rationale and intent alongside interpretation -

  highly contested interpretation of the Amendment. If the Second Amendment is really about militias, rather than about guns, and if the sort of militias to which it refers no longer exist, the provision is an anachronism because there is no longer any reason to invoke it. [47] According to this view, the right to keep and bear arms still exists, but as with the Third Amendment right not to have soldiers quartered in your home, it has no relevance. [48] This argument amounts to a claim that modern proponents of gun rights have either misinterpreted the Second Amendment or misrepresented it to the American public. [49] The Amendment, under this view, has no bearing on the gun control issues being debated in legislative chambers throughout America today. The issue raised by this argument is whether its proponents have correctly interpreted the Second Amendment.
• 

  IP_SEC

  Dawg,

  I dont think I called you a name did I, not my style.

  Second your hyperbole actually makes no point at all because it compares two things that are not the same. It is a logically flawed argument regardless of what point you are trying to make.

  Im not coming down on you. I dont believe in gun control. Im just pointing something out.
• 

  journey-on

  Are all of you incapaible of reading a post that disagrees with yours with out calling names..

  Are you all too damn stupid

  Looks like the pot calling the kettle black.
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Sammie,

  Think this through:

  Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment

  Introduction

  The Second Amendment:

  A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

  The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.
  
  The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

  There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.
• 

  zagor

  Hell just heard on TV, there are 200 million of guns in circulation in United States. 200 MILLION, of guns, that would make them as common as cars in US of A.
  If you need to carry guns around for the sake of defending yourself wherever you go then that is a sad, sad picture of the country indeed, let alone a democratic country.

  I'm not against guns, neither am I a pacifist, heck, I'm martial artist so I'm all FOR self-defense. But ability of every idiot to buy guns almost as easily as buying a drink as long as you are of the right age makes my stomach churning. And the fact that I would have exactly the same ability doesn't make me feel any better, nor does it automatically mean I would be able to defend myself. It is still a matter which one of two of us would be quicker at drawing a gun. (neglecting the fact that his one is already drawn) Kinda reminds me of wild west movies.
  It is actually much more complex issue, an issue that calls for the right training in operating guns with confidence. Few ordinary people are actually interested in that just as few people are interested in martial arts. Which then leaves ENTHUSIASTS and weirdos wanting to have guns because ordinary folks don't see much point in carry one around.

  Having said all of that I don't think the problem is in guns alone any more than in knife that can be used for either cutting of bread or for killing (though in itself that is false reasoning, guns are made exclusively for killing).
  Problem is probably at least two fold. One issue is the process of how easy it is to obtain a gun. 10 minutes background check is laughable. What on earth can you find out in 10 minutes about somebody?!? Only if they had criminal record. Well excuse moa, I've just done a small research of my own and NONE of the mass killers in the last decade had any criminal record that would prevent them from obtaining a gun. Now purpose why most other countries have licensing scheme is exactly that, so you can assess the profile of the person wanting to get one, as well as the assessment of his reasons. No one says that will eliminate every single criminal from obtaining a gun but sure as hell will stop most idiots. Both this fella and Columbine duo were twisted farts that could have been screened had there been a proper process in place by which you can get a gun. Which would certainly saved all those lives and stop idiots like them going into a shooting rampage as if they were playing a video game. Which brings me to my second point.

  As a society we need to wake up to the fact that these shooting were years in making. They are being reinforced and glorified through media, movies, video games etc, making watching of KILLING of someone a fun. We often think how advanced we are. I tell you we are no more advanced than masses in Rome's Colosseum cheering gladiators to kill each other in front of them.

  It takes at least 18 years to raise a child, it is 18 years of hard work and often sleepless nights. And then some fart comes along and kills him/her in a blink of an eye because he felt like it. I think we need to get real here before more innocent blood fills the earth.
• 

  zagor

  ... an interesting artilce. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/04/us_boy_caged_for_drawing
• 

  Brother Apostate

  Dawg,

  did they intend us to use arms that wern't even invented yet?

  Simple, simple point-

  The second amendment was crafted as a living, breathing document- yes the authors and contributors had in mind that weapons would evolve.

  Or do you really think the intent was to have flintlocks and blunderbusses vs next generation weapons?

  Don't you understand that yet?

  If you don't get it yet, read weapons history, ok?

  Love,

  BA

  PS- are you a Deputy- Deputy Dawg?