Guns and JWs (page 5)

EvilForce

Well depending on the size of the force it what will determine it I guess. If he is in a small city and has to carry his gun in the field and whatnot he's at risk. If he is really in administration only and not out in the field he'll be ok. At least that's my understanding of the JW's stance...but then again they tilt at windmills anyway, so who knows.

peacefulpete

The Constitutional right to bear arms was to be able to resist an oppressisve governmet in the event it should develope in the new republic. This "right" has already been willingly sacrificed for the betterment of society. We as a nation collectively feel greater security in forbidding individual ownership of weapons like nuclear bombs or Tommahawk missles etc. The shear destructive power of such weapons has made the potential for harm greater than the risk of government military oppression. The debate therefore IS NOT about the priciple of Constitution but about the level of public risk we feel comfortable with. Many feel that the line should be set with no guns at all, others recognizing the tradition of hunting feel that guns that have "legitimate" hunting use pose an acceptible risk. Very very few feel comfortable with private ownershgip of fully automatic, large caliber, concealed or night vision weapons. The present Administration represents and caters to this minority view.

jeanniebeanz

(we have learned from the past afterall)

Eduardo,

Our past conversations make me fairly certain that there is not much under the sun that we will ever agree on. You are a very liberal individual who believes that government and litigation is the way to make people do everything that you want, and that the witnesses have the 'truth'.

My beliefs are very conservative, I do believe that there is a definite possibility that a completely unarmed populace is begging to have the government run their every choice in life, and that the witnesses are full of *hit.

Frankly, you annoy the *ell out of me with your holier than thou attitudes and condescending writing style. But, hey! I am entitled to my opinion just as you are. And, I have no doubt that your reply to this will be scathing since I have yet to see you be able to take criticism from a woman without blowing a head gasket or trying to make the object of your irritation feel stupid with big flowery words and legalese.

Your privilege, of course.

Jeannie

btw, before you start crying ad hominem, take a look at your reply to my simple stated opinion. In your reply, you called me silly, stupid, nonsensical, unable to differenciate between fiction and reality and your reply was couched in the most blatently condescending tone. There was nothing in my post that would have warrented your rude response to me.

This is a discussion board not a 'let's abuse our fellow posters and call them names' board.

how silly it is to think that the government would do something like that
you are just stupid
(I am afraid you once saw "Red Dawn" and took it for nonfiction.)
sheer nonsense.
FOR MORE EDUCATION SEE THE WAR IN IRAQ!

eljefe

Eduardo,

your argument is a popular one with pro-gun advocates but it is not only unsubstantiated by facts and real world evidence it is also illogical because it presumes that guns would be easily available to the criminal element.

Speaking of unsubstantiated, you made up all of your numbers and ideas.

99.9% of gun owners have never been in a situation

Can you substantiate this with a link to a relevant news site?

So, your argument is a popular one with anti-gun advocates but it is not only unsubstantiated by facts and real world evidence it is also illogical because it presumes that guns would not be easily available to the criminal element.

TonyT

I have a great idea. Lets fully enforce our existing gun laws, using the maximum sentences and see how this affects violent crime before trying to take guns from law abiding citizens.

jeanniebeanz

Lets fully enforce our existing gun laws, using the maximum sentances and see how this affects violent crime before trying to take guns from law abiding citizens.

Dan-O

"Very very few feel comfortable with private ownershgip of fully automatic, large caliber, concealed or night vision weapons."

I'd have to research the night vision angle, but I know that fully automatic weapons have been illegal for private ownership in the U.S. for decades, and I'm confortable with that. I'm also quite confortable with the licensing in our 'right to carry' states for concealed weapons.

I'm curious, though: how are you defining "large caliber"? Is that anything bigger than a .22? Bigger than a .44? Bigger than a 20 mm anti-aircraft gun?

"The present Administration represents and caters to this minority view."

Actually, I'd say that the Clinton administration and Senators like Kennedy & Feinstein are the ones catering to minority views about gun ownership. Perhaps you've willingly thrown away your rights, but the majority of americans have not.

"You would teach your child how to handle a gun at 7 or 8?"

Yep. I'm not suggesting that a 7 year old is ready to pack a .357 next to the peanut butter sandwich in his Scooby Doo lunchbox, but kids need to learn more about responsible gun ownership than what they see on TV & in movies (or, sadly, more than most parents teach them).

We even work a lot of 7 year olds through a BB gun program in Cub Scouts. They learn to safely handle the weapon & begin learning marksmanship. The principles of safety & awareness of your target easily carry over to firearms. Scouting guidelines restrict rifles, shutguns, and muzzleloaders to Boy Scouts; the boys in our Cub Scout pack will have to wait until they're about 11 before they can handle those weapons in a Scout sanctioned activity.

avishai

"You would teach your child how to handle a gun at 7 or 8?"

Yep. I had a bb gun and regularly shot a .22, SUPERVISED, at 8. Best training I got, it taught me respect for weapons, and how to use them. NOT educating people on use of an item is an argument? Geez, that's the same argument the religious right uses about condoms

Oroborus21

Hi Jeannie,

I love it when I am misquoted.

Actually if you will please read more carefully you will note that I said the "idea" of believing such was "silly" and that I said if you "believe" that an armed citizenry could stop the Government's armies "THEN" you would be "stupid" etc. etc.

Note that these are challenges to beliefs and positions not individuals which IS the purpose of this forum.

PS to Eljefe, yes the "99.9%" is obviously "made up" it is called hyperbole which is only illustrating my POINT which was that the vast majority of gun owners have never shot a fellow human being. Do you really need to see that in print somewhere to believe that assertion? If you do then you are sorely out of touch with reality.

In any case, you didn't counter my central argument (nor has anyone in this thread for that matter) which is a very simple one: if guns were restricted in the same manner as even say "dynamite" (or whatever "equivalent" would be "strong" enough) the world would be a far better place. Criminals would not have access to Guns like they do and they would certainly be less prone to using them if they were so expensive to acquire due to their highly being regulated. Not too mention yes, enforcing even stricter penalties on their use.

Of course this means the sacrifice of Society in giving up gun-hunting and sports shooting (except for maybe with extensive licensing and tracking requirements for professional trap shooters, biathalon athletes, etc.) and even more importantly the closure and bankruptcy of the majority of Gun manufacturers and all sub-industries and businesses which is, let's face it, the REAL ISSUE that prevents guns from being taken off the streets or not made available to the public. (It would also mean the same controls on gun making materials so that underground industries of "private gun manufacturing" of guns and bullets would be difficult. (Incidently when my brother use to make his own bullets, I loved sneaking out his black powder and primers and making home-made hand-grenades and cannons - ah childhood!))

Incidently it would not be the first time that whole industries and sub businesses were forced out of business due to changes in Society or the law.

Yes it would mean a big sacrifice to the world/society but the dividends would be well worth it.

-Eduardo

PPS: I thought that I should add or make clear that I grew up in a household that had hunting rifles and have been both deer hunting and rabbit hunting myself as a kid. I loved it when my brothers brought home some bucks and yes at some point we had a few heads on the wall in my house (I think one was a 16 pointer!) and I dig the taste of venison and wild game and I have eaten everything from quail to rattlesnake that drifts across the New Mexico plains. Also my brother actually had an M-14 or M-16 (not sure) that he "acquired" from a buddy in the Reserve. I used to play with it but never shot it myself. Despite all of this experience I am obviously anti-gun and anti-hunting. (Although I do believe and wish that more persons had to kill and clean their own (animal) food because I think this would reduce the consumption of animals overall which I believe would be a good thing, even though I am not vegetarian.)

TonyT

Can someone explain how making guns illegal would keep guns out of criminal hands when we have such a shining example in the war on drugs?

Guns and JWs

Share this