Gun Control

Thank you

miscegenymiser, I think the amount of arms that the people would need to resist a tyrannical government would be enormous. I think the saftey of the public would be far more at risk with that kind of weaponry readily available.

I am sure my definition of reasonable regulation is different than yours, since your view is that people should be armed to protect themselves against an authoriarian government. I think people should be allowed to pursue sporting hobbies, but allowing them to be armed to the teeth is just dangerous for socitey as a whole. I think reasonable regulation is permits to own a gun, with some kind of safety training, background checks and waiting periods to purchase one to prevent criminals and mentally unstable from getting weapons, limitations on the type of weapon. No one needs an uzi for target practice. And I think the guns themselves should have to be registered to a specific owner, with penalties if the gun is not secured and is involved in an accidental shooting or a crime.

I am sure you will disagree.

The NRA is founded on the premise that the 2nd amendment of the constitution grants an individual right to own firearms. While this has been the view of conservatives historically the courts have ruled that the right to bare arms is a collective or state right. Moreover, the constitution principally deals with the federal government and most gun laws are local or state laws. Last year in District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court changed direction and decided the 2nd amendment did guaranty an individual right to bare firearms. It will be interesting to see if the courts continue in this direction or if they will revert to their earlier legal opinion.

In any case, the gun enthusiasts I meet I notice two traits: Paranoia in that they greatly overestimate their own danger of being a victim of violent crime and and an overestimation of the efficacy of privately owned firearms to protect them. The best I can determine a handgun is more likely to get you into trouble than out. It is more likely to kill you, a friend, an innocent bystander, or a family member than it is any attacker. While access to a gun would no doubt be handy in the unlikely event that someone is trying to kill or maim you the rest of the time it is largely a liability.

“We need to realize that forcing law abiding citizens to give up their guns will only give criminals opportunity. Killers are not going to say “Damn, well it was great while it lasted but I guess now I should turn in my gun. After all I don’t want to break the law”. The main thing that keeps criminals away from robbing houses is because of gun owners. “

What a load of equine waste. Please cite the statistics that show gun ownership is in anyway a deterrent for robbery?

“The NRA promotes the safe handling of our guns. It teaches responsibility with gun ownership and has raised millions to help its cause. Contrary to what other sources may tell you, the primary objective of the NRA is not genocide.”

The NRA is nothing but a propaganda arm of the gun industry. Their sole purpose is to make sure there is absolutely no regulations governing privately owned weaponry.

“I don’t think until after WWII did you hear of any of the industrialized countries trying to take guns away. Why is that? Realistically, because they want to expand their control, most of which is already beyond the bounds of the nation’s initial constitution of foundation.”

Because up until then the firepower of the weapons available was relatively small compared to now. And you gun nuts all say the same thing about taking your guns away. Regulation is not the same as banning.

“The reason we should have a right to bear arms is to protect against too much government control. And my belief is that the right to bear arms means the right to own and use the weapons standard of the era.”

First off, the right to bear arms as the founders saw it refered to maintaining a militia. At the time if you were called up for service, you were expected to bring your own gun. Banning guns would have been considered a security threat for the country from outside forces. In no way did they think they were arming citizens to protect themselves from the goverment they were creating. If that were true, than the constitution would not have had language about the need to suppress rebellions. Do you really think that the founders intended for it to be ok for the people to rise up against the government? Then why did we have a civil war? According to you, it was perfectly acceptable for the south to rebel against the north.

Where do you draw the line at what type of weapon you can own? Assault rifles? Bazookas? RPGs? Tanks?

The bottom line is, private gun ownership results in much more innocent people being killed than it does in successful prevention of crime.

Never heard the one about genocide…

All right, I think that this is really the only time in history we have really tried to keep the weapon of the era out of the hands of civilians. For the longest times, it was clubs, then blades, somewhere in there there were bows and arrows, then muskets, then revolvers and multi-shot carbines. I don’t think until after WWII did you hear of any of the industrialized countries trying to take guns away. Why is that? Realistically, because they want to expand their control, most of which is already beyond the bounds of the nation’s initial constitution of foundation.

People have come to believe in the goodness of government(or just flat out rely on it), that those in power are taking advantage of such, twisting words and people’s thoughts. The reason we should have a right to bear arms is to protect against too much government control. And my belief is that the right to bear arms means the right to own and use the weapons standard of the era.

Its not about gun control but teaching people gun safety…take gun rights away from people, it just takes them away from the honest and those who are gonna be dihonest and committe crimes will still have guns and do what they want.

We need to realize that forcing law abiding citizens to give up their guns will only give criminals opportunity. Killers are not going to say “Damn, well it was great while it lasted but I guess now I should turn in my gun. After all I don’t want to break the law”. The main thing that keeps criminals away from robbing houses is because of gun owners.
The NRA promotes the safe handling of our guns. It teaches responsibility with gun ownership and has raised millions to help its cause. Contrary to what other sources may tell you, the primary objective of the NRA is not genocide.

How long have drug laws been on the books… and what have these done to curb the usage?… They have expanded the power of the drug cartel families exponentially. Imprisoned many people whose only crime was a personal vice. They have killed innocent bystanders amidst drug wars. Prohibition was an utter failure and only boosted the crime syndicate of the north east. Alas… gun laws are different… right!

Historically… who have been advocates of gun control laws? Dictators and tyrants…

MAJOR 20th CENTURY GENOCIDES – THE COST OF GUN-CONTROL

1-1.5 million Armenians exterminated between 1915 and 1917 by the Ottoman Turks via penal codes article 166 passed in 1866.

20 million anti-communists/anti-stalinists exterminated 1929-53 by the soviet union via penal codes article 128 passed in 1929

13 million Jews/gypsies/anti-nazis exterminated 1933-1945 by the nazis via Law on Firearms and Ammunition/Weapons law on April 12/March 18 1928

100,000 Mayan Indians exterminated 1960-81 in Guatemala via decree 36 from 1861 and decree 283 in 1964.

300,000 Christians and political rivals exterminated 1971-79 in Uganda via firearms ordinance of 1959 and firearms act of 1970.

1 million educated persons exterminated in Cambodia 1975-79 via penal code articles 322-328 passed in 1956.

56 million people killed as a direct result of gun control laws… add to this list the 2 million dead from the ongoing genocide in Darfur… facilitated by their gun control laws and it becomes obvious that this measure is the tyrants most nefarious weapon against humanity.

Where do gun rampages happen… in gun free zones… thus the term… “Going Postal”

How many guns are owned in the U.S. in excess of 100 million… by millions of responsible gun owners… If all of us are “nuts” wouldn’t the gun crime and violence rate show a direct correlation?

Why hasn’t the government prohibited guns and rounded them all up… because an armed populace has the leverage of using those arms in resistance.

Disarmed populations are themselves rounded up and done away with… a great consolation for giving up arms indeed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&NR=1

Background checks are already in place… before any firearm is purchased the background information of the purchaser is sent to the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and approved by an adjudicator. This process can take anywhere from 30 min to 30 days. All guns bought legally are registered.

Concealed carry permits are issued after an individual passes a written test and exhibits proficiency in the safe handling and operation of the sidearm. In the states where permits are issued.

Why would you assume that criminals would acquire a gun legally?… Do you assume that with the enactment of more stringent regulations… black market guns would become much harder to obtain. The UK can attest that even when handguns are prohibited… they are still attained and if the statistics I cited are correct… used more frequently in criminal behavior. The main reason being the robbers know that they have the advantage… the law abiding subjects of the UK will not be wielding one in opposition.

I think that the modus operandi of tyrants is telling… they don’t confront an armed population… but always disarm them first. The amount of gun owners in the U.S. exceed military numbers… and although the government does have the means to bomb the population into oblivion should it turn rogue… this would mean that those necessary to rebuild the infrastructure would be as dead as the dissidents… If the government becomes tyrannical… enforcement would be house to house just as in Iraq… no wonder Iraqis are allowed one gun per household… only for protection against thieves.

Do you trust former military and police officers with firearms?… Gunsmiths?… Who is capable of being trusted with a firearm?

I think you should become acquainted with a firearm. Maybe the fear will be replaced with a newfound respect. Call me haphazard… but I trust you enough to give your new status as gun-owner my blessing.

In 2001… four years after the U.K. banned handguns the use of handguns in armed robberies had increased by 53%

In 22 years since state governments decriminalized concealed carrying of handguns… mass shootings declined by 78 percent.

The homicide rate has decreased by 33 percent in the United States since 1998 the same year that Canada enacted the 1995 bill C-68[overall regulation restrictions] whereas Canada has seen a 3 percent rise.

I wouldn’t doubt your ability to cite alternate statistics… and would wager that you are as apt to believe those I have cited as I am inclined to trust those that you will cite. Studies are hired by those with agendas… I take them all with a pinch of salt.

Can you detail reasonable regulations?..

Why do you believe the United States is not susceptible to tyrannical government? Do you think it is prudent to keep a measure of resistance in the unlikely event that the same fate befalls us or to dismiss the probability as too paltry to be possible?

You asked what I thought was reasonable regulation. I know background checks are now required, and they were fought tooth and nail by the NRA. And it only applys to hand guns and automatic weapons. I think all guns should have to be registered. And they are not really registered. The sale is registered. There is no renewable registration, like a vehicle. Without that, it is easy to overcome background checks with strawman purchases. And there is still the gunshow loophole.

“Why would you assume that criminals would acquire a gun legally?”

When did I say or imply this? However, every single gun, unless it is homemade, was at one time legal. I think the person who originally purchased it legally should be held liable for crimes committed with it.

I do not want to live in a country where the citizenry feels the need to be armed. If our country becomes one like that, I will leave. I have no desire to own a gun, and I never will. I am not saying everyone has to be feel that way. But everyone should be responsible with their guns.

This is a bit of a touchy subject for me. I just lost a nephew to suicde last christmas. While he may have still found a way to kill himself had a gun not be around, it sure made it a lot easier. So I have been affected, like millions of other families, by gun violence. And it really sucks…

It seems obvious to me, that no-one (governments included) should be allowed to own nukes or similar weapons of mass destruction. If we all agree on that, then we’ve already agreed that regulation of arms is valid. The 2nd Amendment does not say ‘guns’, it says ‘arms’.

So then it’s a matter of determining the intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think the real intent of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure that it would remain possible for the states to overthrow the national government if it became despotic. This goes back to the wariness with which the Constitution was ratified.

Private ownership of guns really does act as a check of this nature on the federal government, and so still has a Constitutionally legitimate purpose. Regulation of weapons should thus be a state matter, not a federal matter.

the 2nd Ammendment is a privilige

Let’s say someone was willing to commit the crime of murder, or rape, or something heinous like that. If they were willing to commit such a terrible crime, would the lesser crime of “do not have a concealed weapon” really be that big of a deal to them, probably not.

But let’s say there was someone who didn’t want to commit any crime, then the “do not have a concealed weapon” law would still be a big deal to him and he would follow it.

Now the “do not have a concealed weapon” law has only kept the law-abiding person from having a concealed weapon but hasn’t kept the person who is willing to commit crimes of murder and rape from having one. The law-abiding person is at a disadvantage to the maniac.

Ultimately though “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is a fundamental right in our founding fathers eyes, and if we can start infringing on that right, government could infringe on 1st amendment rights, fair trial rights, state’s rights. (Much of these they already do).

The NRA, is an association that presses for 2nd amendment rights, and an organization that teaches, and very very much stresses, gun safety.

Any crime committed with a gun, should be punished very harshly, but anything that is a crime, simply because of the possession of the gun, shouldn’t be a crime at all.

A gun nut to me is someone who equates regulation with banning, and thinks the NRA can do no wrong. We regulate autos to keep the general public safer. There is no reason guns should be any different.

hivetyrant, are you really saying there should be no laws regulating guns? You think anyone should be able to own an RPG? And every illegal gun at some point starts out as a legal one. And the way they become illegal is through a lack of regulations.

I have no problem with people owning guns as long as they are responsible, and meet the criteria of ownership, no felonies, no mental instability, passing some kind of gun saftety program, and anyone who doesn’t keep them locked up and allows a child to get a hold of one, should lose the right to ever own one again.

miscegenymiser, yes there is a big difference between drug prohibition and gun control. First off, I am not suggesting a prohibition on guns. Just reasonable regulation. Secondly, I think all those statistics about gun control by tyrants is moot when talking about the US. I could also cite the stastics of countries with strict gun controls and how their rate of gun deaths is a fraction of ours.

Background checks are required on all guns… my dad is a gunsmith… and retailer… I know. All guns are registered… that is those that are sold legally.

“Why would you assume that criminals would acquire a gun legally?”

When did I say or imply this? However, every single gun, unless it is homemade, was at one time legal. I think the person who originally purchased it legally should be held liable for crimes committed with it.”

This is implied by your position… and as far as the original purchaser… do you think the government should assume the right to arrests those outside of the country where many illegal arms are imported from?

The problem with wanting to leave a country where you no longer feel safe is the ability to do so… very often this is not the case. Look at the emigration laws of the citizenry that were victims to tyrannical governments… however your opinion is honored by me… I hold the opposite.

Very sorry for your nephew. I lost an immediate member of my family to a self inflicted gunshot wound one month ago. I sympathize with the sense of hopelessness that you must have felt. I don’t blame the gun. I know that this member of my family would have found a way to end his life as he was not happy anymore. The method is immaterial… the cause is the culprit in my mind and this is the same with any homicide.

—According to you, it was perfectly acceptable for the south to rebel against the north.—

Well, not that I supported the South’s decision in the Civil War, but how convenient coming from someone living in New York. I think both sides were sh!tting on each other, and they both caused it. Just happened to be one got more momentum on the other, primarily due to the fact that they could make more guns.

The line should be a very fat one, or fine, depending on how you view things. I see no reason why a civilian shouldn’t be able to own an RPG or an automatic weapons. In fact, there are already many out there in the less (anti)Liberal states. And so far, the ones who purchased and continue to own such weapons through the pre-determined legal channels haven’t used them illegally.

—The bottom line is, private gun ownership results in much more innocent people being killed than it does in successful prevention of crime.—

Have any statistics to prove THAT? Objective, third-party statistics that can be placed side by side other statistics, such as those that show that less than 5% of firearms purchased legally are used in a crime, much less ones that result in actual injury and death? You want to end the killing? Put more money into law enforcement and Civilian Defense(government teaching its sheeple how to defend themselves). You know the Virginia Tech shootings? Nobody tried once to take him down, and the police response was poor at best.

And I would appreciate not being called a gun nut. I may be an enthusiast, and I may be collecting firearms as a hobby, but I’m not paranoid. I don’t think someone’s out to kill me. I’m seriously doubtful of EVER having to deal with a break-in in my neighborhood, much less a home invasion. And I keep hoping that the Federal Government of the United States of America will not screw up so bad as to start some sort of active rebellion or civil war(not just talking about guns, mind you. They’re the lowest on my list.) However, I do enjoy shooting at targets and an occasional hunting trip, and I have always had a fascination for things involving the militaries over the years. Guns, swords, aircraft, vehicles, siege weapons miscellaneous equipment. Don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to mess around with these so long as I have the money, since I don’t have a criminal record, and never will.

ok handguns bad rifels good I mean most times your not going to rob a bank with a rifel but rifels are good agenst handguns so it evens out or we give evry one a free gun so it balences out