On guns, where does one draw the line
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2013, 07:22 PM
On guns, where does one draw the line
Ive read the thread by kingschosen in the casual coffeehouse about the skype call on guns. Though it pains me to introduce yet another thread (by myself, no less!) about guns in this section, I think that this question is only fair to ask if this country is having a debate about gun control.

Where do you draw the line?

What I mean is the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the government will not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Yet 1) we never define what is meant by an 'arm' and 2) we all know certain categories of weapons should be restricted from sale to the general public for the following reason.

If we look at the numbers of incarcerated felons in the United States, we find about 3 million bad guys locked up. If we use that number as a yardstick for all the bad apples in the basket, and there are approx 300 million people living in the US, we find that about 1% of the public is bad; As a sidenote, it also means that 99% of the people out there are good. So, if you meet a stranger on the street, armed or not, there's a 99% chance they are friendly.

Anyway, so 99% of the people are good, productive citizens and 1% are bad. So, if they are armed, only 1% are likely to use weapons for evil purposes. It seems trivial, but here's the problem. With the destructive power of some weapons or weapon systems even a mere 1% of the public can cause tremendous carnage and havoc. That 1% equipped with a jet fighter can take out a city block with a laser guided bomb or shoot down a jetliner, killing 200 people. A single person with a thermonuclear weapon can level an entire city and kill 300,000 people in a single strike.

Now there's the other side of the coin on arms control. The Second Amendment was written to arm the public with weapons designed for military purposes. Though our Founders were armed with muskets and cannons and could not imagine the military machinations we have today, it's clear that they wanted the public armed with weapons which can be used for military purposes to serve as a bulwark against government tyranny. This position is also backed up by SCOTUS case US v Miller, which seems to argue the government cannot restrict a type of arm from individual purchase if it has a legitimate use in a militia. Supporters of gun control have, for the past 30 years or so, been quietly introducing the idea into CW that the Second Amendment applies to hunting only and that guns sold to the general public only have 'a legitimate sporting purpose'. I cannot find any reference in the Constitution to this; it's like saying the First Amendment only applies to speech which is non-offensive.

As I mentioned in a previous thread on the Militia , we, the public of the United States have gradually shifted from protecting our national security by armed, non-regulated militias over to large, regulated standing armies (which, incidentally, is unconstitutional) as internal security agencies and police forces. With that being the case, it would seem the militia justification of the Second Amendment is going the way of the dinosaur, despite its potential usefulness.

Like the TTA skype call, there are also a lot of Americans, myself included, who grew up with guns, never broke the law with them, and are baffled why some segments of the public seem to only blame guns for criminal behavior and never the malefactors. Indeed I have observed the most ardent among them seem to consider ANYONE who owns a gun as a criminal and fear people turning into criminals by merely gaining access to a firearm. This attitude also seems to coincide with an attitude of elitist left wing paternalism; Great White Daddy knows what's best for you and he'll keep the sharp objects out of your reach (but he won't hesitate to avail himself of them when he needs them).

I've also made it clear that I support some aspect of gun control with my thread on a proposed IPL . Guns should not be easier to obtain than a cell phone and if you want to buy and own them, I think you should not exhibit dangerous or irresponsible traits, have a criminal record, or suffer from a serious mental disorder.

Since 1935 we seem to have answered the question about what kinds of arms the public can own with the National Firearms Act, with severely restricts the purchase of Machine Guns, short barreled shotgun and rifles, suppressors, other destructive devices and any firearm with a bore diameter exceeding .50 inches. I always felt that was a pretty reasonable limitation, provided collectors or enthusiasts could purchase them with additional paperwork. In recent times there seems to be a push towards restricting semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines in the same manner.

If we the people do want all military arms restricted from sale to the general public, I'd suggest a constitutional amendment which modifies or renders null and void the second amendment, shifting all military arms to government agencies and allow the individual states to determine their own policies on gun control. If you can't get a constitutional amendment, then I believe this push toward further restrictions on the sale of certain ypes of firearms should not be pursued.

Thoughts?

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
30-01-2013, 10:26 PM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(30-01-2013 07:22 PM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  Ive read the thread by kingschosen in the casual coffeehouse about the skype call on guns. Though it pains me to introduce yet another thread (by myself, no less!) about guns in this section, I think that this question is only fair to ask if this country is having a debate about gun control.

Where do you draw the line?

What I mean is the 2nd Amendment does guarantee the government will not infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. Yet 1) we never define what is meant by an 'arm' and 2) we all know certain categories of weapons should be restricted from sale to the general public for the following reason.

If we look at the numbers of incarcerated felons in the United States, we find about 3 million bad guys locked up. If we use that number as a yardstick for all the bad apples in the basket, and there are approx 300 million people living in the US, we find that about 1% of the public is bad; As a sidenote, it also means that 99% of the people out there are good. So, if you meet a stranger on the street, armed or not, there's a 99% chance they are friendly.

Anyway, so 99% of the people are good, productive citizens and 1% are bad. So, if they are armed, only 1% are likely to use weapons for evil purposes. It seems trivial, but here's the problem. With the destructive power of some weapons or weapon systems even a mere 1% of the public can cause tremendous carnage and havoc. That 1% equipped with a jet fighter can take out a city block with a laser guided bomb or shoot down a jetliner, killing 200 people. A single person with a thermonuclear weapon can level an entire city and kill 300,000 people in a single strike.

Now there's the other side of the coin on arms control. The Second Amendment was written to arm the public with weapons designed for military purposes. Though our Founders were armed with muskets and cannons and could not imagine the military machinations we have today, it's clear that they wanted the public armed with weapons which can be used for military purposes to serve as a bulwark against government tyranny. This position is also backed up by SCOTUS case US v Miller, which seems to argue the government cannot restrict a type of arm from individual purchase if it has a legitimate use in a militia. Supporters of gun control have, for the past 30 years or so, been quietly introducing the idea into CW that the Second Amendment applies to hunting only and that guns sold to the general public only have 'a legitimate sporting purpose'. I cannot find any reference in the Constitution to this; it's like saying the First Amendment only applies to speech which is non-offensive.

As I mentioned in a previous thread on the Militia , we, the public of the United States have gradually shifted from protecting our national security by armed, non-regulated militias over to large, regulated standing armies (which, incidentally, is unconstitutional) as internal security agencies and police forces. With that being the case, it would seem the militia justification of the Second Amendment is going the way of the dinosaur, despite its potential usefulness.

Like the TTA skype call, there are also a lot of Americans, myself included, who grew up with guns, never broke the law with them, and are baffled why some segments of the public seem to only blame guns for criminal behavior and never the malefactors. Indeed I have observed the most ardent among them seem to consider ANYONE who owns a gun as a criminal and fear people turning into criminals by merely gaining access to a firearm. This attitude also seems to coincide with an attitude of elitist left wing paternalism; Great White Daddy knows what's best for you and he'll keep the sharp objects out of your reach (but he won't hesitate to avail himself of them when he needs them).

I've also made it clear that I support some aspect of gun control with my thread on a proposed IPL . Guns should not be easier to obtain than a cell phone and if you want to buy and own them, I think you should not exhibit dangerous or irresponsible traits, have a criminal record, or suffer from a serious mental disorder.

Since 1935 we seem to have answered the question about what kinds of arms the public can own with the National Firearms Act, with severely restricts the purchase of Machine Guns, short barreled shotgun and rifles, suppressors, other destructive devices and any firearm with a bore diameter exceeding .50 inches. I always felt that was a pretty reasonable limitation, provided collectors or enthusiasts could purchase them with additional paperwork. In recent times there seems to be a push towards restricting semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines in the same manner.

If we the people do want all military arms restricted from sale to the general public, I'd suggest a constitutional amendment which modifies or renders null and void the second amendment, shifting all military arms to government agencies and allow the individual states to determine their own policies on gun control. If you can't get a constitutional amendment, then I believe this push toward further restrictions on the sale of certain ypes of firearms should not be pursued.

Thoughts?
I have no clue why you make the jump and leap you do at the end. I agree with basically all I see you saying until that last bit which seems to come out of the side from how I read it.

As you point out, other destructive devices and high level titled weapons are legally obtainable. They just require more paper work, further background checks, and types of higher grade weapons can seem to require you having to explain a reason for wanting them to be granted by local authorities.

So my question has always been why would someone not want people to push to make more or all guns require deep checks such as that opposed to the system now, where a significant percentage of guns are being purchased without any background checks. This isn't a desired approach to take guns away or in anyway breach the 2nd amendment.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 12:15 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
For pistol's I draw the line 10 to 15 feet from the target ar15's considerably more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like panterasr9's post
31-01-2013, 03:41 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
For private firearms:

Thorough background checks before purchase.
Mandatory training in use, paid out of pocket. License must be renewed every year.
One gun per household.
Gun can never leave private property of owner, unless it's disassembled.
Gun can only be lethal at 10ft or less.
Gun can hold no more than 5 bullets.
Gun must be locked at all times if in a household with someone of 18yrs of age or younger.

It's not your toy, it's not your status symbol, it's not part of your fantasy to defeat the armies of Mordor or Big Brother. It's a weapon of war, designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. You should never want one or want to use one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes PoolBoyG's post
31-01-2013, 03:54 AM (This post was last modified: 31-01-2013 10:58 AM by Julius.)
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 10:04 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  One last point too on ammunition for self-defense. Why do the bullets have to be hollow-points and other highly lethal versions? ( A buddy once showed me a type of bullet designed to generate a shock-wave upon striking the victim so as to cause the heart to stop, no matter where the impact occurred)
No such cartridge has ever existed. Your Buddy is quite the fibber.
Quote:My sister-in-law told me a story
once (this is TN) about her grandfather and his run-in with some teenage
vagrants. They would come on to his farm at night and steal his gas. He
has a right to protect his assets, no? Sure. He has a right to kill
teenage boys over gasoline? I say hell no. Anyways, he hid outside one
night and waited with his shotgun. They came along with their canisters
and proceeded to fill-up (it was a farm and they had a private gasoline
tank for farm use). He unloaded two rounds, one for each. Only he used
rock salt instead of lethal shot (obviously even this can be deadly if
used improperly). He aimed for their asses and hit his target both time.
He knew exactly who they were the next day when he saw them at the
local store, unable to sit down because of the pain from the rock salt.
Your sister-in-law is also quite the fibber. Here's a review of a test showing what Rock-salt loads can and can't do: http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot33.htm


Lots of lies told about guns an ammo - don't be so quick to believe them all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 05:05 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
Question.

The 2nd amendment says "government can't stop you from owning arms".
But is a nuclear warhead not considered arms..?
So the argument of the 2nd amendment says this that and the other is flawed, because in that line of argument I should be able to own a nuclear warhead.

The point is that you do draw the line of what firearms citizens can and cannot have. It's really not that big of a leap to simple shift that line. But to say that there isn't a line, which preaching the 2nd amendment is doing, is wrong.

Unless I'm missing something.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
31-01-2013, 08:44 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 03:41 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  For private firearms:

Thorough background checks before purchase.
Mandatory training in use, paid out of pocket. License must be renewed every year.
One gun per household.
Gun can never leave private property of owner, unless it's disassembled.
Gun can only be lethal at 10ft or less.
Gun can hold no more than 5 bullets.
Gun must be locked at all times if in a household with someone of 18yrs of age or younger.

It's not your toy, it's not your status symbol, it's not part of your fantasy to defeat the armies of Mordor or Big Brother. It's a weapon of war, designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time possible. You should never want one or want to use one.



I respectfully disagree.

1. It is irrelevant how many guns a household has. My dad is a collector and has over 150 firearms in his house. He will never use them except for going to the range and self defense.

2. Restricting guns to private property is a direct violation of the right to own and carry a firearm.

3. When the law abiding citizen has a gun that is only lethal from 10 feet or closer, how does he defend himself when the criminal has a gun lethal from 25+ feet?

4. The number of rounds a magazine can hold is irrelevant. One of the Columbine shooters used 10 round magazines. He had 13 magazines. The only difference between a 10 round magazine and a 30 round magazine is the rate of reloading, which is about 6-8 seconds.

5. That is common sense, however there is another option. The guns in my house when I was growing up weren't all locked up. Instead, my father taught me gun familiarization. I fired my first rifle at 8. I knew what they could do and that they were to only be handled in the presence of my Dad unless someone broke into the house. It is the responsibility of the gun owner to properly store their weapons in their homes. Not the government's.

Guns are not the issue. It's who gets them. The overwhelming majority of legal gun owners do not purchase guns in order to go on shooting sprees. They buy them for self defense and for personal use at shooting ranges. I have three rifles and a pistol. I keep the pistol loaded in the nightstand next to my bed almost all the time. It is my first line of defense if someone breaks into my apartment.

Lastly, it isn't a weapon of war, it is a weapon used in war. In America the first function/purpose of most firearms is self defense, not murder and robbery. And yes, in a way it is a part of the reality, not fantasy, that you have firearms to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.

[Image: bmHWg.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Generation Why?'s post
31-01-2013, 08:49 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
(31-01-2013 05:05 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Question.

The 2nd amendment says "government can't stop you from owning arms".
But is a nuclear warhead not considered arms..?
So the argument of the 2nd amendment says this that and the other is flawed, because in that line of argument I should be able to own a nuclear warhead.

The point is that you do draw the line of what firearms citizens can and cannot have. It's really not that big of a leap to simple shift that line. But to say that there isn't a line, which preaching the 2nd amendment is doing, is wrong.

Unless I'm missing something.

Up until about 50 years ago, you could purchase a 20 millimeter anti-tank/aircraft gun. There were no murders with them, but they were available for purchase. Luckily nuclear weapons are ridiculously expensive and I don't see a private citizen ever attempting to buy one, of course that doesn't mean it would never happen. Legislation has been passed barring private citizens from buying things such as anti-tank guns, rockets, and nuclear weapons. So no worries there. Although someone up here in Seattle at a recent buy back program turned in the receiver for a stinger missile, so there's that...

[Image: bmHWg.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 09:48 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
The point is that guns were never designed for self-defense, they were designed to kill. You may use it for personal defense (within the limits of reason obviously) but that is not their designed purpose. It's like evolution. Your fingers did not evolve for typing, but you have adapted them for that purpose.

On to the more salient points raised. Guns may not kill people and spoons may not make people fat, but guns are designed to kill and make doing so that much easier. Why is attaining a gun easier and less time consuming than getting a freaking driver's license? Both can kill but only one is designed to do harm while the other is engineered to reduce harm in the event of an automobile accident.

Gun laws need to be amended. I don't necessarily think they should be banned (although I doubt I would shed a tear if they were) but if you are going to own one that is fully functional and operational, there should be

A) limits on what you can buy. The extreme example here has already been pointed out, aka that you can't own a nuclear weapon. What would be the most useful weapon for home self-defense? A shotgun or maybe a handgun. For self-defense when out of the home? A handgun (but I don't feel that this is really necessary). The shotgun is a fire and forget style weapon that has low penetration capability when coupled with the right shot. No need to worry about bullets traveling through walls injuring innocents. If you hunt then there are other weapons that one could argue for but why high-capacity magazines and anything other than a bolt-action rifle?

Anyone remember this?





B) Yearly renewal of your gun license. I realize you don't have to renew your driver's license every year, but it is not a weapon designed to kill. How often are cops required to redo their training with their weapon?

C) Fees. Gun tax. Bullet Tax. License tax. These taxes can go to good use for funding programs designed for gun safety education and funding the infrastructure to manage them. And for other crime related issues and perhaps police training. You have to pay to play.

D) Insurance. If you own a fully-functional one, you should have to have insurance to cover any damage or injury or loss of life from the aforementioned weapon. Your son gets it and uses it without your knowledge? You are still liable. It gets stolen and you don't report it? You are still liable. Rates vary depending on whether it is kept in your house or if you get insurance for use outside of the house (personal safety and hunting would also have different rates). You have to pay to play. You own a car and pay insurance, why not a gun?

E) Background checks. This goes along with insurance (they can choose not to insure you if you are deemed unfit) and your license (your license can be rejected). The background check does not just mean your criminal history, but your mental state too. You are required to take a psych eval every other year (except for those between the ages of 18-30 and it is every year, since this is the age range when must psych issues arise in people)

F) Requirements for buying ammunition mean presenting your insurance and license information and there are limits on the amount of ammunition that any given firearm you own can have within 50 ft of it at any given time. If you live in a house where you have a shed outside, you may be able to own more. If you are worried that restricting the amount of ammunition will inhibit your ability to stop the government whenever they are apparently going to come for you, we will be in full on war at that point and you won't have a hard time finding ammo anyways, so lighten up.

G) Membership to a firearm club required. The club will charge you some dues and it can use those as it sees fit (funding a firing range complete with ammo so you don't have to buy your own for instance). Membership rates can vary depending on the club and go from the basic membership needed where you go once a year for a re-up on your safety training, to more costly memberships where you get to use the firing range at any time with a monthly ammo allowance (rate varies depending on the amount of ammo you want to fire). You get the benefit of a group where you share common interests with members and it can host other functions too. For instance, it could have a Western themed movie month and show old John Wayne movies or someone purchases a new firearm and others want to try it out, they can. Or a sponsorship with a gun seller means they bring over a small collection of guns every month for members to try out.

The point is that the status quo is in serious need of change.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-01-2013, 10:04 AM
RE: On guns, where does one draw the line
One last point too on ammunition for self-defense. Why do the bullets have to be hollow-points and other highly lethal versions? ( A buddy once showed me a type of bullet designed to generate a shock-wave upon striking the victim so as to cause the heart to stop, no matter where the impact occurred) Why not less-lethal versions for self-defense and lethal versions for hunting?

My sister-in-law told me a story once (this is TN) about her grandfather and his run-in with some teenage vagrants. They would come on to his farm at night and steal his gas. He has a right to protect his assets, no? Sure. He has a right to kill teenage boys over gasoline? I say hell no. Anyways, he hid outside one night and waited with his shotgun. They came along with their canisters and proceeded to fill-up (it was a farm and they had a private gasoline tank for farm use). He unloaded two rounds, one for each. Only he used rock salt instead of lethal shot (obviously even this can be deadly if used improperly). He aimed for their asses and hit his target both time. He knew exactly who they were the next day when he saw them at the local store, unable to sit down because of the pain from the rock salt.

In some ways this is still very cruel, but it does the job of self-defense and property defense without the need for lethal force. With medical care, there should be no lasting effects.

Why not implement more of the less-lethal variety of ammo types?

Why not invest in less-lethal weapon types for self-defense instead of guns anyways? And I don't just mean tasers and mace. Why not new technology that disables your assailant without the need for lethal force?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: