Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Like Tree162Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old February 22nd, 2013, 11:20 AM   #251 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbf98 View Post
the reason it turned into "hand gun vs long arm" is because gun laws affect the long arms heavily compared to the hand guns.

And I don't need to be shown wikipedia for facts, I've done my own fact checking. And if you look you will find newscasts from that day with investigators saying the bushmaster was found in the trunk of his car.

chrlswltrs don't forget the protection of your rights. If you give up your right to bear arms, you give up the your protection of your other rights. Not saying that it will happen but if the government limits what guns its people can use, it will make it easier to take away other rights with out much of a fight. Sure it would cause mass protests, but with freedom of speech gone protesting would not be protected and you could be arrested.

Like I said not saying it will happen, but less guns makes it easier for the government to try to get away with things like that

I was watching an old tv show from the 50/60s (The Rifleman) yesterday and the episode was about a good friend being killed by a gun. And the son of the rifleman blamed the gun, and wanted absolutely nothing to do with guns. Then the rifleman had a line in that episode that went like
ďDonít blame the rifle, Mark. It didnít trigger itself"
Seems they had the same opinion back then that fewer of us view now..
You definitely don't need to tell me anything about rights. I served in the military to protect this country, and I took an oath to defend the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic. My oath has no expiration date.

Advertisements
__________________
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

-Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old February 22nd, 2013, 11:20 AM   #252 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,570
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 510
Thanked 393 Times in 307 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post

And the right to protection is equal to the right to free speech or any other right.
Why does the right to arms have to be guns? You could argue that a police force is providing that protection, if there were fewer guns the need for that use of protection is less! I don't stay in the nicest of Towns, the blue angels bike club (hells angels rival over here) have a club house just up the road, yet I don't feel the need for any more protection than to lock my doors at night, even then it wouldn't be that rare I've forgotten to do so before going to sleep, even then, that's only for protection against theft!

On the other note,I did suggest a system where the first gun is affordable!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 11:26 AM   #253 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,570
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 510
Thanked 393 Times in 307 Posts
Default

There have been constant contradictions though as you seem happy to restrict the rights of certain individuals, someone with mental health issues caused by issues in their life such as sexual abuse etc which then causes them to become suicidal, or someone with disabilities are already having these rights taken away from them...... And rightly so, but non the less, if a right is a right, shouldn't we all have them?

Could say same about criminals but they lose certain rights and freedoms by breaking the law..... Still, a contradiction of your argument!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 11:31 AM   #254 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Why does the right to arms have to be guns? You could argue that a police force is providing that protection, if there were fewer guns the need for that use of protection is less! I don't stay in the nicest of Towns, the blue angels bike club (hells angels rival over here) have a club house just up the road, yet I don't feel the need for any more protection than to lock my doors at night, even then it wouldn't be that rare I've forgotten to do so before going to sleep, even then, that's only for protection against theft!

On the other note,I did suggest a system where the first gun is affordable!
Because it is our choice, thats why. Because a knife doesn't do a whole lot of good to protect a woman from being raped by a larger, stronger man. Because a sword doesn't do much good to protect a family from two or more armed intruders breaking into their house. I could keep going.

Depending on where you live it can take police 10-30 minutes to respond to a 911 call. That is enough time for the criminal to do what they want and then they can try to catch the criminal after they have raped, beaten, stolen whatever they wanted.

Different guns are used for different things. If I want to own the following guns for the following reasons, why should it be made out of reach?
1. Shotgun - home defense and bird hunting
2. AR15 - home defense (easier for my wife than a shotgun) and small game hunting
3. Pistol - personal defense away from home
4. 10/22 - practice and fun to shoot
5. Rifle (30-06, .308, etc) - larger game hunting (deer, moose, bear, etc)

Those would be just the basics, so again your argument is void even if the first gun was reasonable.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Last edited by chrlswltrs; February 22nd, 2013 at 11:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 12:40 PM   #255 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,570
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 510
Thanked 393 Times in 307 Posts
Default

But if there was a ban on guns, criminals just breaking into houses etc, would not be carrying (it'd be the big time guys robbing banks etc!) And as someone already pointed out most robberies will take place during the day when no one is in!

In the situation of a rape, certainly over here, most happen out in public places, from spiking, partners in the home, very few happen in situations where someone is likely to be able to get the gun at hand and use it without being over powered!

Here is a cracking quote

But most of the time, gun owners are frightening themselves irrationally. They have conjured in their own imaginations a much more terrifying environment than genuinely exists -- and they are living a fantasy about the security their guns will bestow. And to the extent that they are right -- to the extent that the American environment is indeed more dangerous than the Australian or Canadian or German or French environment -- the dangers gun owners face are traceable to the prevalence of the very guns from which they so tragically mistakenly expect to gain safety.

edition.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer?c=&page=3

Some pretty good points through out the article and to my view seems pretty fair and in the middle rather than pro or against!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 01:01 PM   #256 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Ok, so it is still a right that we have, not a privilege given by the government.

And you say that the criminals wouldn't have guns? How do you figure? Any gun regulations will only apply to law abiding citizens, not criminals. A "gun free zone" sign reads "defenseless victim zone" to a murderer. Taking away guns just reduces the on the job risks to criminals. They won't give up their guns or follow any gun laws, the same way they don't give up their drugs because they are illegal.

We should just make murder and assault illegal and not worry about guns. That will solve all of the issues.
dontpanicbobby likes this.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 01:12 PM   #257 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,570
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 510
Thanked 393 Times in 307 Posts
Default

Same thing being said each time......

Not hitting the point! Yes there will always still be some guns available to the criminal minded, but if the majority of guns were off the streets with trade ins etc, then only the big time criminals will have them, probably gangs etc, Joe Bloggs who decides to rob a house or convenience store etc will not have that access! So unless you are a multi millionaire, your not going to be a target to those with access to guns!

Take almost any other civilised country with strict gun laws and it is that very situation, more reports of crimes with fake toy guns than actual working weapons!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 01:19 PM   #258 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Same thing being said each time......

Not hitting the point! Yes there will always still be some guns available to the criminal minded, but if the majority of guns were off the streets with trade ins etc, then only the big time criminals will have them, probably gangs etc, Joe Bloggs who decides to rob a house or convenience store etc will not have that access! So unless you are a multi millionaire, your not going to be a target to those with access to guns!

Take almost any other civilised country with strict gun laws and it is that very situation, more reports of crimes with fake toy guns than actual working weapons!
And, in those countries there may be less "gun crimes" but violent crimes (assult, robbery, rape, etc) are much, much higher than in the US because there is no risk to the offender. I'll be protecting my rights and my family's safety at all costs and by any means. My oath to protect this country and the constitution doesn't ever expire.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 01:34 PM   #259 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,570
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 510
Thanked 393 Times in 307 Posts
Default

This page would suggest you were correct, but upon reading into the comments you would find that to be wrong!

War News Updates: What Country Has The Most Violent Crime Rate Per 100,000? Hint: The Answer Will Surprise You

The definition of violent crime is the issue, and perhaps due to the leniency of gun laws in the USA, it means stats on assault is completely different.

Lies, damned lies and statistics comes to mind!
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 01:52 PM   #260 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Familyguy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Gallatin, TN
Posts: 580
 
Device(s): HTC Droid Eris-rooted with GSB v2.2. || HTC-Thunderbolt-Stock
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3
Thanked 21 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Ok, so it is still a right that we have, not a privilege given by the government.
Is this referring to being armed? I know I am being cynical here, but that 'right' was still technically given to us by the government was it not(?), considering the ones writing the DoI and Constitution were a part of the current government that they were trying to fix. Having access to a firearm is not a basic human right, if I am understanding your wording here...

I get the whole gun debate thing, but are we keeping the 2nd Amendment purposely vague, so it is up to interpretation? Because updating it to be more specific would, in theory, be a good move, so people actually know what their 'right' is. (?)
sntaylor likes this.
Familyguy1 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Familyguy1 For This Useful Post:
ElasticNinja (February 23rd, 2013)
sponsored links
Old February 22nd, 2013, 02:16 PM   #261 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Sntaylor, I'm just curious. Why are you, someone who doesn't even live in this country, arguing so hard that we should give up our rights? Is it because you don't have the same right to defend yourself?

Also, there is no way to measure how many crimes are prevented because criminals don't know who is armed due to conceal carry laws. We do know several things though:
-The 2 cities in America that have the strictest gun laws, Chicago and Washington DC, are the 2 most violent cities in America.
-The areas with the highest gun ownership per capita have the lowest crime rates.
-25 states in America do not require any type of permit to carry a concealed weapon, 4 out of 5 murders take place in the other 25 states.
-The Supreme court has ruled that it is an individual right to carry a firearm away from a person's home for self defense.
sntaylor likes this.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 02:20 PM   #262 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Familyguy1 View Post
Is this referring to being armed? I know I am being cynical here, but that 'right' was still technically given to us by the government was it not(?), considering the ones writing the DoI and Constitution were a part of the current government that they were trying to fix. Having access to a firearm is not a basic human right, if I am understanding your wording here...

I get the whole gun debate thing, but are we keeping the 2nd Amendment purposely vague, so it is up to interpretation? Because updating it to be more specific would, in theory, be a good move, so people actually know what their 'right' is. (?)
No it was not given to us by the government. The Bill of Rights was a list of basic rights (speech, religion, protection, property, due process) that every person has, and can not be taken away by the government. Since the time it was written the government has slowly taken away many of those through things like the NDAA, NFA, etc. The second amendment is the one thing that stops them from completely removing all of our rights, rounding up anyone that disagrees with them, and getting away with anything they want. The government is going to continually take away as many rights as they can get away with until they have total power and control and no way for anyone to resist oppression.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 02:33 PM   #263 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 315
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 24
Thanked 52 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Sounds like some folks here don't just want to ban guns ... they want to CONFISCATE guns.

If that's the case - it is VERY SIMPLE and can be done. It's called a Constitutional Amendment.
JimmyRayBob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2013, 02:38 PM   #264 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyRayBob View Post
Sounds like some folks here don't just want to ban guns ... they want to CONFISCATE guns.

If that's the case - it is VERY SIMPLE and can be done. It's called a Constitutional Amendment.
That is why things are being done slowly, in steps. The government needs to try to brainwash people slowly. If they decided to ban and confiscate all guns next month, the day they started would be the first day of the next American Revolution.

That is why we must stand now, before things really get rolling, so that we never reach that point.
JimmyRayBob likes this.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2013, 10:02 AM   #265 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
No it was not given to us by the government. The Bill of Rights was a list of basic rights (speech, religion, protection, property, due process) that every person has, and can not be taken away by the government. Since the time it was written the government has slowly taken away many of those through things like the NDAA, NFA, etc. The second amendment is the one thing that stops them from completely removing all of our rights, rounding up anyone that disagrees with them, and getting away with anything they want. The government is going to continually take away as many rights as they can get away with until they have total power and control and no way for anyone to resist oppression.
For the Bill of Rights to have effect it must be legislated for. I presume it is a piece of Federal legislation, or part of the constitution. Law's can be amended and removed, as can parts of constitutions.

And don't come at me with it being a god given right, Moses or Muhammad said a lot of things but nothing about the right to own RPGs.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2013, 10:56 AM   #266 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
For the Bill of Rights to have effect it must be legislated for. I presume it is a piece of Federal legislation, or part of the constitution. Law's can be amended and removed, as can parts of constitutions.

And don't come at me with it being a god given right, Moses or Muhammad said a lot of things but nothing about the right to own RPGs.
I am truly amazed! Since you believe we should only have what people in biblical times had it is incredible that you are able to post on the Internet with no computer, smartphone, or even electricity.

People have the right to self defense. When the bad guys are armed with modern weaponry what good is a rock and club?
kool kat2 likes this.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2013, 10:00 PM   #267 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
jhtalisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nashvegas, Tn
Gender: Male
Posts: 310
 
Device(s): T-MOBILE HTC ONE M8 STOCK, LG G Pad 8.3 Stock Rooted
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 23
Thanked 87 Times in 61 Posts
Default

So where does the 2nd amendment say that it trumps others right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? That is right, it does not.

And the Bill of Right was a government issued document, introduced by the Founding Fathers, however, they did not forsee the future of weaponry.
sntaylor likes this.
jhtalisman is offline  
Last edited by jhtalisman; February 23rd, 2013 at 10:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2013, 11:19 PM   #268 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhtalisman View Post
So where does the 2nd amendment say that it trumps others right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? That is right, it does not.

And the Bill of Right was a government issued document, introduced by the Founding Fathers, however, they did not forsee the future of weaponry.
A gun has never killed anyone. A gun is nothing but a tool. Guns are neither good nor evil. They can not do anything on their own. Thinking a gun is in and of itself bad or lethal only shows ignorance.

If guns killed people I would be dead right now. Today I was at a rally to protect our rights. Most of us were legally carrying firearms. There was well over 100 guns in that block. Not a single person was hurt.

The problem is you can not ban evil. No matter what laws are passed there will be evil people that will kill. I have a right to protect myself, my family, my property, and my fellow citizens. A law has never stopped an evil person from doing what they wanted, hurting who they wanted, taking what they wanted, or killing who they wanted. A firearm gives an armed citizen the ability to stop anyone from doing harm regardless of any physical advantage the evil person has.
dontpanicbobby likes this.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to chrlswltrs For This Useful Post:
dontpanicbobby (February 25th, 2013)
Old February 24th, 2013, 12:13 AM   #269 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 246 Times in 192 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
A gun has never killed anyone. A gun is nothing but a tool. Guns are neither good nor evil. They can not do anything on their own. Thinking a gun is in and of itself bad or lethal only shows ignorance.

If guns killed people I would be dead right now. Today I was at a rally to protect our rights. Most of us were legally carrying firearms. There was well over 100 guns in that block. Not a single person was hurt.

The problem is you can not ban evil. No matter what laws are passed there will be evil people that will kill. I have a right to protect myself, my family, my property, and my fellow citizens. A law has never stopped an evil person from doing what they wanted, hurting who they wanted, taking what they wanted, or killing who they wanted. A firearm gives an armed citizen the ability to stop anyone from doing harm regardless of any physical advantage the evil person has.

indeed

which is why I should repeat myself again

if banning guns and taking them off the streets will prevent crime.......

we should try banning murder, rape, heroine, and meth
JimmyRayBob likes this.
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to copestag For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (February 24th, 2013)
Old February 24th, 2013, 09:03 AM   #270 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Here is a cracking quote

But most of the time, gun owners are frightening themselves irrationally. They have conjured in their own imaginations a much more terrifying environment than genuinely exists -- and they are living a fantasy about the security their guns will bestow. And to the extent that they are right -- to the extent that the American environment is indeed more dangerous than the Australian or Canadian or German or French environment -- the dangers gun owners face are traceable to the prevalence of the very guns from which they so tragically mistakenly expect to gain safety.
NO, it is a stupid quote. Some people get a gun and because they are scared and a few of those people will have accidents. Most responsible gun owners are level headed and they wish to be prepared for a possible problem.

Most responsible gun owners will never brandish a weapon or shoot an intruder.

And over the last few decades, violent crime has actually decreased.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (February 24th, 2013)
sponsored links
Old February 25th, 2013, 08:58 AM   #271 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 315
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 24
Thanked 52 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
That is why things are being done slowly, in steps. The government needs to try to brainwash people slowly. If they decided to ban and confiscate all guns next month, the day they started would be the first day of the next American Revolution.

That is why we must stand now, before things really get rolling, so that we never reach that point.
I agree completely ... that's why I tell gun control proponents to just be straight forward and ask for a constitutional amendment (which would NEVER pass).

I think the Republican's lost this last presidential election about 40 years ago ... school teachers, the media, the journalism schools are generally liberal. It was a slow, deliberate and quite successful (from the liberal point of view) trip to where we are today.
JimmyRayBob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2013, 11:15 AM   #272 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhtalisman View Post
So where does the 2nd amendment say that it trumps others right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? That is right, it does not.

And the Bill of Right was a government issued document, introduced by the Founding Fathers, however, they did not forsee the future of weaponry.
So what does Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness actually mean? Do the folks from across the border have a right to blast mariachi music at 3:00 AM because it makes them happy? Do I have a right to have it stopped because sleeping makes me happy?

To answer that question, I suggest you read the writings of the day. Read what our founders said and you might have a better understanding of our founding documents. These men were brilliant and they crafted the most perfect document ever penned by man.

The Founding Fathers had no idea about the weaponry we have today and that does not matter. We have the right to keep and bear arms, period. The problem is, when we discuss this, people ask about bazookas, nukes, and other "arms" and that tends to muddy the discussion.

No reasonable person thinks we should have the right to mount mini-guns on out trucks or keep a spare Bazooka in the trunk. Most gun owners have common sense.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2013, 02:29 PM   #273 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
sntaylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ayrshire, scotland
Posts: 1,570
 
Device(s): S2 Rooted, Nexus 7 (Shared So Stock) Galaxy W(Fiancees)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 510
Thanked 393 Times in 307 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Sntaylor, I'm just curious. Why are you, someone who doesn't even live in this country, arguing so hard that we should give up our rights? Is it because you don't have the same right to defend yourself?
I've never actually said that guns should be banned, I've made it as a suggestion(if someone reads back and counters that, my apologies for not coming across properly, my son is only 4 weeks old and most posts have been made with a lack of sleep! Lol)

I have in general, sided for a ban on guns!

Over here we do have the right to defend ourselves with equal force and as guns are banned, they are very rare, maybe only a handful of cases every year, and of those, certainly using hand guns(which are the guns banned!), then we have no need as decent citizens to own such items! It is usually in gang warfare, or at least use by gang members, not just Joe blogs, that will have a gun, especially hand gun.

There are still rare cases when we have a man who had a complete breakdown after family issues and he went on a driving spree and shot some people with a shotgun!

This is where my point has always tried to center, if the majority of guns are off the street, it will only be the hardened criminals that will get access, especially if appropriate penalties are in place! Your average rapist, thief or whatever, isn't as likely to have a gun to use in their crime!

The argument about being overpowered etc is often(of course not always) going to be irrelevant with a gun available as unless there is going to be enough time to react, digging through a bag probably, then the rapist is likely to already offer powered their victim and up close if the gun has been accessed its still unlikely that it will be of use!

Of course thereare always going to be exceptions to any case!

I personally just don't see what the big deal is about having a gun, when in the majority of situations there should be no need for protection! I've yet to come across a situation where I felt I've had to arm myself with even a stick, and I'm not exactly big and scary myself (smidgen under 5ft7 weighing about 11st when wet, and most of that is in my thighs!)
sntaylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sntaylor For This Useful Post:
ElasticNinja (February 25th, 2013)
Old March 4th, 2013, 01:25 PM   #274 (permalink)
Fixing stuff is not easy
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Over there <points>
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,690
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy S3; Asus Infinity
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 2,117
Thanked 4,314 Times in 2,513 Posts
jerofld
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
But if there was a ban on guns, criminals just breaking into houses etc, would not be carrying (it'd be the big time guys robbing banks etc!) And as someone already pointed out most robberies will take place during the day when no one is in!

In the situation of a rape, certainly over here, most happen out in public places, from spiking, partners in the home, very few happen in situations where someone is likely to be able to get the gun at hand and use it without being over powered!

Here is a cracking quote

But most of the time, gun owners are frightening themselves irrationally. They have conjured in their own imaginations a much more terrifying environment than genuinely exists -- and they are living a fantasy about the security their guns will bestow. And to the extent that they are right -- to the extent that the American environment is indeed more dangerous than the Australian or Canadian or German or French environment -- the dangers gun owners face are traceable to the prevalence of the very guns from which they so tragically mistakenly expect to gain safety.

edition.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer?c=&page=3

Some pretty good points through out the article and to my view seems pretty fair and in the middle rather than pro or against!
It's a little different over here in the states. CNN is mostly anti-gun, so I view anything they publish with suspicion.

In my area, there is a major city, Baltimore. In Baltimore, they found that 89% of gun violence incidents were committed by persons with at least 1 prior felony. Which means that they were disqualified for gun ownership at the time they committed the crime with a gun. So they had an illegal firearm. How, exactly, is a stick going to protect me against an assailant with a gun? The criminal has already proven that they do not regard the gun bans. Banning guns will only put the firearms in the hands of the criminal element and the government. Which the government isn't trusted by a vast majority of the citizens, anyhow.

Firearm ownership is very deeply engrained into American culture. Ever since Lexington and Concord, it has been a staple of our freedom. We would probably have lost our independence in 1812 had it not been for the militias in Maryland. Those were farmers and other citizens who maintained personal arms. Granted, we don't have to really fear of another British invasion, but the Chinese and Russians are growing ever restless and distrusting of us. And then, as I said, the US Government isn't always looking out for our best interests, either.
jerofld is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2013, 08:43 PM   #275 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

This thread has been pretty dead for a couple weeks since my last post since I explained how a gun is only a tool. I had someone send me this link and I wanted to share it though. This is one of the most well written articles by an educated, informed, open minded person I have ever read on the gun issue and "gun free zones". It is completely fact and evidence based. It is a great read, especially if you live in the delusional fantasy world and think "gun free" zones accomplish anything good.

Opinion on gun control
chrlswltrs is offline  
Last edited by Phases; March 11th, 2013 at 08:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old March 23rd, 2013, 09:59 PM   #276 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default A Brief Note

Since I began this thread, I feel that I have some degree of ownership of its content, although I don't moderate it or even pay much attention to it any more. But I'd like everyone who's still active on this thread to take notice of the demise of another "gun thread" that was shut down after it got too personal, focused on minutiae and went way off-topic, to name a few of the things that went wrong. Please, do give it a look and use it as an example of what doesn't fly around here.

I can't honestly say that I agree with everything in this site's rules and guidelines, but I agreed to abide by them. (IMHO the benefits of community here far outweigh what I personally don't like.) That's a contract that I know that I'm expected to keep, and I do my best to do just that. I also stand in solidarity with this site's guides and moderators, and the decisions that they make, even when they're against me. Again, I read the rules and agreed to abide by them. We're only human, and there are consequences sometimes.

I'm not going to tell anyone what to do here. That's not my job, nor my authority. But I'd like to make an appeal to everybody who posts here, asking all to endeavor to keep the padlock off of this discussion. I know that there are some informational and productive things still left to be said on this topic. Please, let's not force the management here to close this little slice of the big picture because we can't all agree to at least follow house rules. "Think twice, post once."

Thanks! CBS cares.
EarlyMon likes this.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (March 23rd, 2013), pastafarian (March 24th, 2013)
Old March 23rd, 2013, 10:35 PM   #277 (permalink)
The PearlyMon
 
EarlyMon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 46,370
 
Device(s): M8, LTEvo, 3vo, and Shift - Evo retired
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 42,727
Thanked 57,185 Times in 22,977 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Well said, thank you!
__________________
|

Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.

Links: Site Rules / Guidelines -and- Zero Tolerance Policy (All Members Read)


For right-on help, the Thanks button is on the right of the post.
For anything out in left field, the /!\ report button is to the left.

Remember, it's our forums and we're all in this together - so let's keep it cool!

Shoot the breeze at the best new gun forum!
EarlyMon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (March 24th, 2013)
Old March 23rd, 2013, 10:45 PM   #278 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Hopefully this thread does not get out of hand like the other one did. Before the other thread was closed there was a very good question asked about what the difference is between a civilian AR15 and the military M16. Since many people, especially the media who spread bad information, incorrectly think the AR15 is a military weapon it is important to know the difference.

First, AR does not stand for "assult rifle" it was named AR because it was developed by the Armalight Rifle Corp. The AR15 is a semi auto. The M16 is a select fire assault rifle. On the AR15 there is a switch on the side with 2 positions, fire and safe. The M16 has a 3 position switch with single shot (semi auto), burst (3 shots instead of 1) and full auto.

They use the same ammo, magazines, buffer tubes, grips, stock, etc. Everything inside is different though. The trigger group (multiple small pieces that are all of the moving parts in the lower receiver) has several different pieces that are machined differently and it is a felony to put an M16 trigger group in an AR15 if you could even find the right pieces. The upper portion contains the bolt carrier group and is different also. Basically on the outside they look the same but internally they are completely different weapons other than they shoot the same ammo. That even isn't entirely true. Some AR15's can not handle the higher pressure of the 5.56 NATO round and must shoot the .223 Remington round. They look almost identical but a 5.56 round will damage an AR15 if it is not properly chambered to handle the higher pressure.

Outside the guns look almost identical and they feel very similar. The reason each rifle is chosen is because of its reliability, ease of use, versatility, and easy to add accessories. Inside they are very different and operate differently.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Last edited by chrlswltrs; March 23rd, 2013 at 10:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013, 02:28 AM   #279 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
jhtalisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nashvegas, Tn
Gender: Male
Posts: 310
 
Device(s): T-MOBILE HTC ONE M8 STOCK, LG G Pad 8.3 Stock Rooted
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 23
Thanked 87 Times in 61 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
Hopefully this thread does not get out of hand like the other one did. Before the other thread was closed there was a very good question asked about what the difference is between a civilian AR15 and the military M16. Since many people, especially the media who spread bad information, incorrectly think the AR15 is a military weapon it is important to know the difference.

First, AR does not stand for "assult rifle" it was named AR because it was developed by the Armalight Rifle Corp. The AR15 is a semi auto. The M16 is a select fire assault rifle. On the AR15 there is a switch on the side with 2 positions, fire and safe. The M16 has a 3 position switch with single shot (semi auto), burst (3 shots instead of 1) and full auto.

They use the same ammo, magazines, buffer tubes, grips, stock, etc. Everything inside is different though. The trigger group (multiple small pieces that are all of the moving parts in the lower receiver) has several different pieces that are machined differently and it is a felony to put an M16 trigger group in an AR15 if you could even find the right pieces. The upper portion contains the bolt carrier group and is different also. Basically on the outside they look the same but internally they are completely different weapons other than they shoot the same ammo. That even isn't entirely true. Some AR15's can not handle the higher pressure of the 5.56 NATO round and must shoot the .223 Remington round. They look almost identical but a 5.56 round will damage an AR15 if it is not properly chambered to handle the higher pressure.

Outside the guns look almost identical and they feel very similar. The reason each rifle is chosen is because of its reliability, ease of use, versatility, and easy to add accessories. Inside they are very different and operate differently.
.

Yet you yourself say they look very similar. How can one differentiate one with the other unless fired upon? It is not like they get a close up view before an insane idiot with a weapon for killing goes off on them.

The gun issue is two-fold, if that cannot be seen then so be it. But the more legal weapons available, the easier it is to get without a paper trail. Relatives, friends, etc. loan out weapons, have them stolen, or are murdered to get access to these weapons (Sandy Hook), and there isn't anything can do to prevent short of banning them.

So to say there isn't a murder that could have been prevented is asinine, as the fewer legal weapons in the wrong hands could have prevented a child from such a tragic death.

To not have sympathy for the perished is a cold, unemotional deduction, and to care more about your desire to own or carry a tool that is only designed for the purpose to kill is callous and selfish.
jhtalisman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013, 02:42 AM   #280 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
copestag's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,352
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 246 Times in 192 Posts
Default

or in other words........... the AR15 is basically a .22 sqirrel rifle with a different skin

most people dont even know what size round an AR15 uses......... its just a costume to make it look like a badass gun..... just like those old plastic toys that looked like an M60 and had the pull slide that made a vibrating sound to immitate firing werent an assaut weapon........ neither is an AR15 which fires a round essentially the same caliber as the most common gun recommended for beginners

you do realize a .22 (squirrrel rifle) is less than a pubic hair smaller than a .223 (an ar15)?

as for the other thread sorry earlymon...... try rereading your timeline and fix it tomorrow before someone needs to fix it for ya........ you clearly were aloof and acted inappropriately

if you need help on that feel free to PM I will guide you through it...... hate to see the good ones go
copestag is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old March 24th, 2013, 02:52 AM   #281 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

If you disagree with a Moderator's action, please PM them directly. I really don't want to see another thread closed. I am trying to enlighten the less informed and can not do that if threads keep getting closed for one reason or another.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chrlswltrs For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (March 24th, 2013), sntaylor (March 24th, 2013)
Old March 24th, 2013, 02:53 AM   #282 (permalink)
The PearlyMon
 
EarlyMon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 46,370
 
Device(s): M8, LTEvo, 3vo, and Shift - Evo retired
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 42,727
Thanked 57,185 Times in 22,977 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

No one will be fixing that thread. There were sufficient deletions, and my call on the timeline was fine.

Thanks for your opinion though.
EarlyMon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
PrinceCorwin (March 24th, 2013), Speed Daemon (March 24th, 2013)
Old March 24th, 2013, 03:52 AM   #283 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhtalisman View Post
.

Yet you yourself say they look very similar. How can one differentiate one with the other unless fired upon? It is not like they get a close up view before an insane idiot with a weapon for killing goes off on them.

The gun issue is two-fold, if that cannot be seen then so be it. But the more legal weapons available, the easier it is to get without a paper trail. Relatives, friends, etc. loan out weapons, have them stolen, or are murdered to get access to these weapons (Sandy Hook), and there isn't anything can do to prevent short of banning them.

So to say there isn't a murder that could have been prevented is asinine, as the fewer legal weapons in the wrong hands could have prevented a child from such a tragic death.

To not have sympathy for the perished is a cold, unemotional deduction, and to care more about your desire to own or carry a tool that is only designed for the purpose to kill is callous and selfish.
I carry a gun daily and hope I never have to use it. I don't carry it to kill someone, I carry it so that I can defend myself or my family in a life or death situation as a last resort. How many people are robbed at gunpoint everyday? Many times pulling your own gun will make the criminal run away when they know they don't have an easy victim without a single shot ever being fired. How high would the body count have been at the Oregon mall shooting last year if there hadn't been a legally armed citizen that drew a gun on the shooter (he didn't have to fire as the shooter took his own life when he was faced by armed opposition)? How many more people would have died a couple months ago in the San Antonio theater when again a shooter faced an armed citizen (this time the citizen did kill the shooter in defense of everyone in the theater)? It is not morally superior to be unprepared for the worst and become a victim. I do have sympathy for innocent people that are killed, regardless of how they are killed, be it a gun, knife, hammer, anything. That doesn't mean I will allow myself to be a victim if I am ever in that situation. Odds are I won't ever be, so hopefully I never have to use my weapon.

You are correct that from a distance it can be impossible to tell the difference. But, that doesn't mean that one of them needs to be banned. In fact a shotgun is much more effective at killing multiple people in a confined space than an AR15, but no one is talking about banning shotguns. That isn't even entirely true. My shotgun would have been banned had Feinsteins "AWB" passed because I put a different stock on it. Again, the only reason it would have been banned is because some people think it looks scarier.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013, 08:43 AM   #284 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sntaylor View Post
Why does the right to arms have to be guns? You could argue that a police force is providing that protection, if there were fewer guns the need for that use of protection is less!
The police are under no legal obligation to help you. Most people do not understand this simple fact.

There are cases where people call the police and they either never show up, go to the wrong address or take twenty minutes (or more) to arrive.

So what good is a police officer if he or she never arrives or arrives after the fact?
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013, 08:47 AM   #285 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
The police are under no legal obligation to help you. Most people do not understand this simple fact.

There are cases where people call the police and they either never show up, go to the wrong address or take twenty minutes (or more) to arrive.

So what good is a police officer if he or she never arrives or arrives after the fact?
They document your death or attack and then try to find the murderer/rapist/mugger/thief/etc... Doesn't help you much, but that is all they can do if you don't do anything to help yourself.
PrinceCorwin likes this.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to chrlswltrs For This Useful Post:
PrinceCorwin (March 24th, 2013)
Old March 24th, 2013, 11:22 AM   #286 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EarlyMon View Post
Well said, thank you!
Thanks for the thanks! And thank you for making the tough decisions in closing threads that became more acrimonious and/or tedious than communal.

As a citizen of my nation I believe that it's a citizen's duty to get involved in our society and have discussions on serious and often divisive topics. As a citizen of Android Forums (which is a private forum) I like having the chaos and ill will turned down for me!
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
EarlyMon (March 24th, 2013)
Old March 24th, 2013, 11:58 AM   #287 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jhtalisman View Post
.
I'd like to point out that it's just common sense to have a healthy respect for anything that sends potentially lethal projectiles downrange, from an air gun to a mortar launcher. To make an analogy, we don't often step in front of speeding cars because they are technically "safer" to get hit by in comparison to speeding trains. IMO it's not a real issue. Every firearm is a potential danger, but that itself is not a valid excuse to ban certain ones. Sorry.

I'd also like to make a friendly reminder to please address the topic and not the other person. Those are the rules. For example, I have a warning because I made a friendly jibe at a friend in the wrong place. My friend got the joke, but that wasn't the point. This isn't the place to attack the person for any reason.

Getting back to the actual arguments. I'm reading a lot of stuff that waxes hypothetical, and implies a slippery slope. Sorry but made-up hypothetical situations mean nothing unless they can be tied to the real world.

If someone does support a theory that also has loads of hard evidence supporting it in a way that convinces me and others that it's really something that works, I'll be the first to sign up for that bandwagon. But without proof, there's nothing to get behind.

I'm still not seeing anything that recognizes that it just might be equally effective and even more humane to focus our attentions on providing help to the almost exclusively mentally ill people who are the ones who actually planned and executed the horrors that we're supposed to want to stop. Is it any less valid to give our brothers and sisters a decent level of health care? Health care that could heal the disturbed minds? Or is it too much work to bother with?

I really don't understand how I'm supposed to have unlimited empathy for the victims, but limit my sloution pool to flogging inanimate objects as punishment for past crimes. How about some forward thinking for a change?

I lived in the City of Chicago before and during Richard M. Daley's handgun ban there. I saw firsthand how it not only failed utterly, but how it fostered increased interest in the now-taboo objects, and a burgeoning illicit trade in them. Repeating that same mistake, with the rise in handgun murders that came as a direct result of the first bans would be like throwing gasoline on a fire! No, repeating the same failed bans is NOT a solution!

I want my world to be safer than it is, just like anyone else. And that's why I do not want to return to the very same policies that have long records of miserable failure. Doing absolutely nothing would be better than that!
Speed Daemon is offline  
Last edited by Speed Daemon; March 24th, 2013 at 12:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Speed Daemon For This Useful Post:
Drhyde (April 5th, 2013)
Old March 24th, 2013, 12:51 PM   #288 (permalink)
Member
 
JohnLaird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 168
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 75 Times in 47 Posts
Default

I'm kind of surprised that no one that I can see mentioned restricting the flow of ammo in addition to controlling guns.

The gun range/shop that I use is totally out of 45ACP and Academy Sport/Outdoors is out of 9mm, 40 S&W and 45ACP. However, they DO have guns with those calibers for sale. You just can't shoot the damn things anymore because of all of the panic buying. Sort of ironic really...they haven't enacted any federal bans or bans in Texas but I still can't really go shooting at the range anymore until the madness going on in the rest of the country subsides and people stop hoarding.
JohnLaird is offline  
Last edited by JohnLaird; March 24th, 2013 at 12:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013, 03:50 PM   #289 (permalink)
Member
 
lightsleeper23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Salt Lake City
Gender: Male
Posts: 465
 
Device(s): Google Nexus 4, Google Nexus 7, LG Optimus L9.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 52
Thanked 91 Times in 75 Posts
Default

I think I'll just leave this thread for the anti gun law people to tell each other they're right. It's apparent to me that any anti gun views are not welcome here because, unlike any other thread, anti gun opinions have been attacked with some sensible arguments but also a lot of rudeness and nonsense that's impossible to debate. I'll not minimize my own part in the increasing lack of civility that happened in the other thread, unlike others that mention it but leave themselves out like it was all other people. It was very difficult for me to argue my position when people would, instead of stating why they disagree, just start spewing stuff about "liberal medias lies", and"idiotic leftist ramblings", and comparisons to the Bush/Iraq situation etc. etc. So yeah that thread got out of hand. But it seems evident that no one is interested in hearing the other side of this argument, just vehemently defending their own position.

For one example, the U.S. hasn't ever had any really big nationwide gun bans, other than the machine gun ban, which did cut down on incidents from them during that time, so the only way to point to hard evidence for data would be to look at other countries that have banned certain guns. But no one wants to even entertain that. They just attack said country and say unproductive things like "well this is america! Things are different here, keep that stuff in that country and don't tell us how to run ours!" So yeah I think it's pretty pointless to attempt to debate this particular issue in this forum.
lightsleeper23 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to lightsleeper23 For This Useful Post:
Gmash (March 26th, 2013)
Old March 24th, 2013, 06:11 PM   #290 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

No matter what went on in the past, I think it's safe to say that from this day forward nobody will be getting away with piling on anyone else'e argument with ad hominem attacks and/or stereotyping. If the mods don't catch it, I'll bug them personally.

That runs both ways though, so please don't blame anonymous people if your argument fails to convince. Nobody ever said that a public debate would be easy, or that everyone would get to win. I can think of several options that so far nobody has tried. If I can think of them, anybody can.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old March 24th, 2013, 06:17 PM   #291 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLaird View Post
I'm kind of surprised that no one that I can see mentioned restricting the flow of ammo in addition to controlling guns.

Ammunition bans would be very bad. That would only hurt the people that have the guns because they enjoy shooting or the people that buy bulk ammo to train with. When I can get enough I easily go through 500 rounds per gun at the range in 1 trip.




Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsleeper23 View Post
For one example, the U.S. hasn't ever had any really big nationwide gun bans, other than the machine gun ban, which did cut down on incidents from them during that time, so the only way to point to hard evidence for data would be to look at other countries that have banned certain guns. But no one wants to even entertain that. They just attack said country and say unproductive things like "well this is america! Things are different here, keep that stuff in that country and don't tell us how to run ours!" So yeah I think it's pretty pointless to attempt to debate this particular issue in this forum.
I know I personally have addressed bans in other countries using reason, statistics, and examples. Like countries with gun bans having the highest violent crime rates and the only reason mainland USA wasn't invaded by the Japanese in WW2 was because of our armed populace.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013, 06:30 PM   #292 (permalink)
Disabled
Thread Author (OP)
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnLaird View Post
I'm kind of surprised that no one that I can see mentioned restricting the flow of ammo in addition to controlling guns.

The gun range/shop that I use is totally out of 45ACP and Academy Sport/Outdoors is out of 9mm, 40 S&W and 45ACP. However, they DO have guns with those calibers for sale. You just can't shoot the damn things anymore because of all of the panic buying. Sort of ironic really...they haven't enacted any federal bans or bans in Texas but I still can't really go shooting at the range anymore until the madness going on in the rest of the country subsides and people stop hoarding.
You bring up a very interesting point. I can't think of a single spree killer who was a serious gun owner, never mind one who would make his or her own ammunition. But after many of them had their homes searched, that search turned up "Doomsday Preppers" amounts of ammunition. Once we set aside hysteria and try not to see special meanings that others don't see, what we have is someone who bought way too much ammo for the act that made them infamous. That's a useful clue!

We already have laws on the books that restrict regular citizens to buying only a couple guns a month. Why not have similar limitations on how much ammunition they can purchase at a time? For those who believe that the end of the world is near, there could be some sort of check to ensure that they don't fit the profile of a spree killer before handing them ammo by the case. Perhaps requiring them to have an arms dealers' license is not unreasonable. The real doomsdayers shouldn''t care since when the government collapses, nobody will be enforcing that license anyway.

I've been at ranges that sell inexpensive reloads for target shooting. It might be a reasonable safeguard to allow shooters at the range as many "made for range" rounds as they can shoot in a visit, but limit sales of the precision ammo that's used for self-defense.

Frankly I think that now (maybe not right now, but after cooler heads emerge) might be a good time for the US as a nation to consider refining and replacing the Second Amendment with a new one that is a lot more specific. IMO it's a waste of time to enact laws that can't pass Constitutional muster. Those who want bans should "aim higher" (no pun intended) and those who want to keep their Second Amendment protections should enumerate precisely what they are going to be. IJS
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013, 06:57 PM   #293 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 193
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 23
Thanked 39 Times in 26 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Its a double edged sword....opening the door to changing the Constitution...because when the door opens all sorts of unexpected consequences come rushing through.

Remember the last time?



A wise man once said....anybody who would give up liberty for safety doesn't deserve either one....I tend to agree with him.
chrlswltrs likes this.
Ridgerunner665 is offline  
Last edited by Ridgerunner665; March 24th, 2013 at 07:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ridgerunner665 For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (March 24th, 2013)
Old March 24th, 2013, 07:13 PM   #294 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Frankly I think that now (maybe not right now, but after cooler heads emerge) might be a good time for the US as a nation to consider refining and replacing the Second Amendment with a new one that is a lot more specific. IMO it's a waste of time to enact laws that can't pass Constitutional muster. Those who want bans should "aim higher" (no pun intended) and those who want to keep their Second Amendment protections should enumerate precisely what they are going to be. IJS
We should change the First amendment too while we are at it. The media should have to report the truth and be held accountable when it doesn't and do it without bias. Stripping naked in an airport to protest the TSA shouldn't be protected as free speech. If a child wants to take a Bible to school it should be OK. There are many problems with the first too. Just saying. Want to rewrite one... Let's fix them all.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013, 07:35 PM   #295 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 193
 
Device(s): Droid Razr Maxx
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 23
Thanked 39 Times in 26 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

In a nation this "divided"....its not possible to fix them....it would be a disaster and we would end up worse instead of better.

The Constitution was written to protect Freedom...not public safety...to rewrite it with safety as the top priority would be a massive mistake...because in doing so you would give Congress the power to decide what we could and could not do...

That's a very slippery slope...

You just can't have a utopian safe society and be free at the same time...its simply not possible.

I accept the risks that come with freedom much better than I could accept the restrictions that come with safety.

The problem its not guns...its people...there are just too many of us on this little chunk of rock.
Ridgerunner665 is offline  
Last edited by Ridgerunner665; March 24th, 2013 at 07:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ridgerunner665 For This Useful Post:
chrlswltrs (March 24th, 2013)
Old March 24th, 2013, 07:38 PM   #296 (permalink)
Member
 
lightsleeper23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Salt Lake City
Gender: Male
Posts: 465
 
Device(s): Google Nexus 4, Google Nexus 7, LG Optimus L9.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 52
Thanked 91 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrlswltrs View Post
I know I personally have addressed bans in other countries using reason, statistics, and examples. Like countries with gun bans having the highest violent crime rates and the only reason mainland USA wasn't invaded by the Japanese in WW2 was because of our armed populace.
Well people are violent, you can't stop people from being violent. This is a problem where mental health needs to come into play. There needs to be a serious focus on mental health. But people will always try to kill other people, that's a given. But we're talking about firearm homicide.

The fact is, countries with fewer guns, have fewer gun homicides. The only places where this isn't the case are violent, 3rd world countries. In the advanced, civilized countries, it's a fact that the less guns they have, the less gun homicides.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdExSbktqRWpLMjNUMkFGVk5VODRyT nc

This spreadsheet shows number of guns per capita, versus gun homicides per capita. It's important to focus on modernized countries: Sweden, Switzerland, Scotland, Ireland, etc.

It's not fair to focus on American cities like Chicago and D.C. that have large gang populations, and are surrounded by a country that is still filled with the most guns in the world. Of course they're still going to be able to get lots of guns in there.
lightsleeper23 is offline  
Last edited by lightsleeper23; March 24th, 2013 at 07:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013, 07:44 PM   #297 (permalink)
Member
 
lightsleeper23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Salt Lake City
Gender: Male
Posts: 465
 
Device(s): Google Nexus 4, Google Nexus 7, LG Optimus L9.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 52
Thanked 91 Times in 75 Posts
Default

I think we should focus on the gun issue here, and let's not get into religion in schools. That's a whole other can of worms right there.
Speed Daemon likes this.
lightsleeper23 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to lightsleeper23 For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (March 24th, 2013)
Old March 24th, 2013, 09:44 PM   #298 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsleeper23 View Post
I think we should focus on the gun issue here, and let's not get into religion in schools. That's a whole other can of worms right there.
I didn't want to. My point was that there are problems with the first amendment in my eyes, the same as there are problems with the second amendment in others. I could have listed many more problems I have the first amendment and with other amendments. My only point was that once you get rid of one of the bill of rights to rewrite it, all other will come into question and be rewritten by whoever happens to be in power at the time.

The constitution was written to limit the power of government, something that no one in govnment likes (except a few who actually care more about freedom than power).

Basically the whole issue comes down to there are crazy people that will always find a way to harm others. There are law abiding gun owners who will not ever hurt anyone. Why are the law abiding citizens being targeted instead of the problem?? Why is the focus on an object that on its own can neither do good nor evil, instead of the people using that object to do evil??

The answer.... It's easier to blame an object and focus on that than it is to focus on the more difficult and real problem of people. Because of this, law abiding citizens must suffer, lose rights, lose hobbies, and lose choices.
chrlswltrs is offline  
Last edited by chrlswltrs; March 24th, 2013 at 09:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old March 24th, 2013, 10:26 PM   #299 (permalink)
Member
 
lightsleeper23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Salt Lake City
Gender: Male
Posts: 465
 
Device(s): Google Nexus 4, Google Nexus 7, LG Optimus L9.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 52
Thanked 91 Times in 75 Posts
Default

But by that sane line of reasoning we should just allow people to own hand grenades, RPGs, cruise missiles, etc. Regulation doesn't mean abolishing the 2nd amendment. Is something that's already done, most people would just like to see it tightened up. Background checks and registration do not take away your hobby, they don't even really add any difficulty to it. Yeah, if AR15s were banned that would effect you a little since you like them. But what if they took that off the table, and it was only universal background checks and registration? You'd still be against it. Because the truth is you're not interested in a compromise, you want nothing done at all. Except enforcing current laws, which most people think is not enough.

The truth is there are all kinds of regulations on hobbies that are potentially dangerous, causing people that like then all kinds of annoyances and grief. But when it comes to guns, the gun folks don't want ANY compromise that causes them the slightest bit of annoyance. They want to pick up a 50 cal machine gun, thousands of rounds of ammo, go out and blow stuff to smithereens to their hearts content, any time they please, at the drop off a hat.
lightsleeper23 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to lightsleeper23 For This Useful Post:
Gmash (March 26th, 2013)
Old March 24th, 2013, 10:54 PM   #300 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
chrlswltrs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Seattle
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,741
 
Device(s): Nexus 4 w/ LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 1,174
Thanked 1,786 Times in 1,163 Posts
Default Re: The Gun Law Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by lightsleeper23 View Post
But by that sane line of reasoning we should just allow people to own hand grenades, RPGs, cruise missiles, etc. Regulation doesn't mean abolishing the 2nd amendment. Is something that's already done, most people would just like to see it tightened up. Background checks and registration do not take away your hobby, they don't even really add any difficulty to it. Yeah, if AR15s were banned that would effect you a little since you like them. But what if they took that off the table, and it was only universal background checks and registration? You'd still be against it. Because the truth is you're not interested in a compromise, you want nothing done at all. Except enforcing current laws, which most people think is not enough.

The truth is there are all kinds of regulations on hobbies that are potentially dangerous, causing people that like then all kinds of annoyances and grief. But when it comes to guns, the gun folks don't want ANY compromise that causes them the slightest bit of annoyance. They want to pick up a 50 cal machine gun, thousands of rounds of ammo, go out and blow stuff to smithereens to their hearts content, any time they please, at the drop off a hat.
That's just it. Most people do not want more regulations, only a slight majority do, and they only want more background checks. The majority of people do not want anything else banned. The first step should be enforcing current laws instead of adding more when the current ones aren't even enforced. How does it make any sense to make more laws when the ones we already have aren't even enforced? If that wasn't the case I would be more open to possibly having more gun regulations.

And your perception of the majority of gun owners couldn't be farther from the truth. You probably know many gun owners without even knowing they have guns. If you met me in real life I definitely do not fit your stereotype. I'm friendly, well educated, responsible, have a family, and have no desire to "go blow things to smithereens whenever and wherever I feel like it." I am like the majority of gun owners. Do you really think 100,000,000 people in America fit your description of a gun owner?
chrlswltrs is offline  
Last edited by chrlswltrs; March 24th, 2013 at 10:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Tags
constitution, guns, laws, politics, second amendment


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.