Gun control points/arguments/debate

Posted by: NucleusG4

Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/10/13 04:02 PM

OK..
So I keep seeing people making their case for or against stricter gun laws.
List your thoughts or those you have heard... or repost something someone else said that made sense to you.
====

OP:
Many of the murders committed using guns are committed by gangbangers and thugs who purchased them out of a car trunk. Most of those who have a felony record can’t legally own a gun, yet they find a way………and they will continue to do so regardless of any government regulation. Disarming law abiding citizens is not only a violation of our constitutional rights, but a direct threat to our safety and that of our family’s. It’s not about politics, or what side of the aisle you vote on……it’s simple common sense.

That being said, I do agree that powerful weapons with the ability to do mass destruction should be banned from public availability.

Response:
They find a way because we have states that allow private sales of guns without any paper or back ground check. Other nations have managed to come up with much better solutions and yet this same stupid argument that there's no point in gun legislation because criminals break laws still persists. Criminals break speed limit laws but we still have those laws and we still prosecute people over them.

====


We have to be armed in case of invasion from foreign invader.
Response:
When was the last time we were invaded...I'll tell you... 1812.

===

OP:
It's our Constitutional right!

Thomas Jefferson said the Constitution needs to revisited every 20 years or so.
He also said:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816

In fact, it's on the Jefferson Memorial.


=======
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/10/13 04:28 PM

OP:
We need to be able to hunt to feed our family.

Response:
When was the last time you hunted and killed and ate your prey/fed your family?

====
Posted by: DLC

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/10/13 04:56 PM

OP
How about we need assault rifles in case the Fed Govt becomes tyrannical !

Response:
1. When was the last or even the 1st time that ever happened? Never !
2. IF they ever did, you think your one (or 2 or 3, or 4) rifle(s) will stop trained troops with far, far more firepower than you can even dream about? What about Drones ? It's delusional Fantasyland without Goofy !!
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/10/13 05:17 PM

Keep in mind that when the 2nd amendment was written and ratified, the fledgling USA had no standing army. An armed populace was its only defense against other nations.

Times have changed. No one needs a Bushmaster, AR-15, AK-47 with massive clips for self defense. If you want one, it should be extremely difficult to obtain one and equally difficult to retain one. And, you cannot sell one without a whole lot of scrutiny and regulation. Close the gun show loop hole(s). Extensive background checks should be required for all firearm transactions, period. None of that infringes on your rights of ownership.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/10/13 05:48 PM

OP 2nd amendment guarantees my right to own a semi-automatic weapon.

Response:
No it doesn't - you still have pistols, rifles, and shot guns**.. in the late 1920s and early 1930s we banned machine guns because mobsters were using them to killpeople... . We outlawed hand grenades... can't get em. So what's the difference with semi-automatics and mega clips? Nothing ! There are limits to your rights ! example: 1st Amendment- can't yell "FIRE!" in a theater. **With the 3 above - anyone's 2nd Amendment rights ARE still preserved.
Posted by: carp

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/10/13 06:36 PM

The point is, that the gun lobby really needs to grow up and understand - one thing.

The Gov is NOT looking to ban (all) guns. Just we the people who choose NOT to have to carry gun , should also NOT be forced to carry one <-- Like NRA wants.

1 - Ban assault riffles , is talked about.
2 - Ban large magazine clips.
3 - Close the gun show loop hole , for no background checks needed. <-- for the life of me who in the h3ll allowed that ? ? -- this is where criminals can get guns.

The NRA makes it look like the gov is trying to ban everything. Not true.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/11/13 11:12 AM

OP:
Hitler won by taking away everyones guns!

Response: (my response was to look this up)
Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University who studies the Third Reich, notes that the Jews probably wouldn’t have had much success fighting back. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS, and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?”

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/11/13 03:17 PM

I have a simple POV. If we just make it harder to get the deadliest, designed only to kill people guns, we save lives. One 30-round clip less is potentially 30 lives saved.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/11/13 04:50 PM

Oh no, no, no, Steve.... that's too logical and simple... it HAS to be more complicated than that !! crazy

wink
Posted by: carp

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/11/13 06:00 PM

I say if the Gov cannot win against the NRA on the right to bear arms (assault rifles) and large magazines.

Then simply sin tax the shiit out of the bullets that feeds them - like 100 bucks each bullet. Even them gang bangers would think twice about drive by shootings.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/11/13 07:45 PM

LOL I can see it now... Gang Bangers having Bake Sales to raise $ for bullets for a drive by !! laugh
(how ya like that one Bill Maher !)
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/12/13 07:49 AM

Bullets being priced extremely high will never work. It puts the hunters out of ammo.
Imagine $100 to hunt a turkey... hope you don't miss.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/12/13 09:15 AM

What about only those that go in semi-automatics??
I don't know if standard hunting ammo can be used for those? (just asking)
Besides I thought you go hunting turkeys with a shotgun.
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/12/13 04:32 PM

Dave, turkeys , deer, pigs, alligator, elephants, whatever. I'm just using turkeys as an example. You can't make ammo 100 dollars a round. That's even more ridiculous than banning certain weapons.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/13/13 11:27 AM

I understand but what if you take only the ammo that goes into semi-automatics & mega clips and raise their cost ? Leave the hunting ammo alone. That's what I'm asking. Is that possible or not ? I know little specifics about various caliber of ammo.

Here's a thought:
How many US citizens were killed by hand grenades last year ?
Bearing that number in mind, why can hand grenade control work, but gun control can't (according to the NRA) ?? crazy
Posted by: carp

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/13/13 12:48 PM

Right DLC,

Target only weapons like assault rifles bullets.

Now I am not a hunter but I don't think they use the same ammo ? ? I mean hunting -vs- killing people ?

Then again I am such a bad hunter I would need artillery support. laugh
Posted by: MrB

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/13/13 06:10 PM

People do hunt with those nasty looking black guns that use the 5.56x45 NATO round. I saw a video of folks hunting prairie dogs and coyotes with
http://www.huldraarms.com/rifles/product_f693dfc027b6/
Picking them off at 500 yards.

Why should hunting or for that matter self defense be only for the rich.

Dave
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/14/13 02:54 AM

Why hunt at all. These animals never hurt anyone why kill them for a sick sport.I always hated hunting all my life.You want to shoot your guns their are targets you can use at shooting ranges all you want.Shoot at them not live animals.
Posted by: Mike

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/14/13 03:39 AM

Originally Posted By: musicalmarv7
Why hunt at all. These animals never hurt anyone why kill them for a sick sport.I always hated hunting all my life.You want to shoot your guns their are targets you can use at shooting ranges all you want.Shoot at them not live animals.


I've never gone hunting in my entire life. I have never owned a gun and have no intention of getting one.
I live in a county surrounded by gun-loving, fanatical hunters. Come hunting season, over half the male
Student population in schools is absent.
Some of the more important arguments of the pro-hunting fanatics are that hunting controls wildlife.
There are dozens of serious accidents caused every year by deer-car collisions.
Coyotes need to be 'controlled' because they will attack and kill farm animals. Farmers here are not allowed to use poison anymore so they shoot them.
I can see the validity of these arguments, but I'll never understand why hunting is considered a 'sport'.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/14/13 04:01 AM

Quote:
I can see the validity of these arguments, but I'll never understand why hunting is considered a 'sport'.
Many of what used to be daily/necessary activities became a sport when the original purpose was supplanted by progress/technology/civilization, etc.

Rowing or sailing used to be the only ways to propel a boat. Now they're chiefly leisure and competitive sports.

Hunting used to be one of the only ways to put meat on the table. Now it mainly a hobby, and necessary only for a very few.

Building a log cabin used to be the only way to keep the rain off your head. Now some people do it just for giggles.

Before the invention of fabric softener, baseball used to be the only opportunity for young men to scratch their crotches in public! blush
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/14/13 04:11 AM

Wow, Dave! *smacks self on forehead* Now that I know that, I'm reversing my POV on gun safety. In fact, I'd like to propose that WalMart start selling 200-round big base drum mags, .50 machine guns, and RPGs — and stock 'em in the $1 bin so even the homeless can afford it! Butt pads, indeed. smirk
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/14/13 01:54 PM

That's not hunting. That's just killing for the sake of killing.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/14/13 01:56 PM

But oh so efficiently. And ain't that the point? smirk
Posted by: DLC

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/14/13 04:35 PM

I will say that I have a friend in GA that hunts wild hogs and it's for meat and to control the hog population. The way he explains it is that each sow can have 2 liters of 12 or more each year. They are overpopulating the countryside where he lives and in many other parts of GA. ... to the point the state has declared them vermin and you can hunt them year around wo a permit and they don't care how they're disposed of. Reason he got into it is they were destroying his deer hunting spot. Again he does hunt for meat to stock his freezer... and I'm sure he would cry if he got a 12 pointer ! wink

I'm not defending hunting per se (I am not a hunter and never want to be) but there are some legit reasons for some hunting of certain animals. I do think it's sick if someone goes out to kill just "for fun". To go for meat or trophies is legit reason although I don't care for it... but I don't consider it "sick". The prairie dog and coyote killing above is not "hunting" to me. I got a gopher problem in my yard.. the little bastids !! mad ... anyone know how to contact Bill Murray ? laugh
Posted by: musicalmarv7

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/15/13 02:39 AM

You are correct 100% in your statement.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/15/13 04:03 AM

I've not lived on an area that was populated with prairie dogs. But from what I've heard ranchers talk in western ks they are a problem in some areas . Around here in SE ks the deer are numerous. Driving can be hazardous .

Also deer and geese can devastate a crop . I've seen deer in groups of 20 .

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/15/13 04:07 AM

I don't live in the area so will let those who do determine what equipment works best.

Dave
Posted by: NucleusG4

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/15/13 08:45 AM

I'm in agreement with "thinning the herd" for certain animals.
Hunting isn't the problem.
Well... hunting "animals" isn't the problem.
Posted by: carp

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/15/13 07:43 PM

I've not lived on an area that was populated with prairie dogs. But from what I've heard ranchers talk in western ks they are a problem in some areas .

The problem MrB , from my understanding is;
Prairie dogs or any similar animal - The ranchers cattle and horses will step into the prairie dogs (burrow) and break a leg . Now the rancher has to put down (shoot) the animal before it becomes a marketed value, if there is a infestation of prairie dogs, the rancher can lose tons of money on lost investment , it takes time to grow cattle.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/16/13 03:12 AM

Good point. The ranchers need ARs to put down more hobbled livestock, too. crazy
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/16/13 09:04 AM

Too bad they banned hand grenades, that would do the job real quick.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/16/13 11:13 AM

Originally Posted By: Leslie
Too bad they banned hand grenades, that would do the job real quick.

Yeah and make hamburger at the same time !!! laugh
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/16/13 12:09 PM

Don't joke about hand grenades and such. Not that long ago Scalia, bless his wizened little soul, was saying that it wasn't clear to him what limitations would make sense under the recent court decision. Specifically, he said, if the intent (so much garbage flows into that particular sewer) was to preserve the right to carry weapons, then he didn't see why citizens shouldn't be able to carry things like RPG launchers--they are, literally, born by the person, so why not?

Idiot.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/16/13 12:19 PM

It is so absurd, how can one not joke about it. It is that or sink into a deep depression.
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/16/13 12:58 PM

Or move to Canada--wait . . . you're already there! wink
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/16/13 01:42 PM

And all (sane) Americans are welcome anytime.
Come on up!

P.S. You have to leave all armaments at the border.
Posted by: KateSorensen

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/16/13 02:00 PM

.

You gotta be kiddin'

I'm not going to the privy out behind a CN home without protection!!

wink


What about those bears that knock over the garbage cans in the driveways!!?? note to self: take high powered rifle and shotgun.

wink
.
Posted by: Leslie

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/16/13 03:24 PM

Posted by: DLC

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/16/13 06:07 PM

I hear ya, but it IS insane to think anyone can carry unlimited weapons...

I don't think the writers of the Constitution would go along with that, Remember there wasn't a free standing army to protect people then - they had to fight indians, wild animals and such with single muzzle loading shots... they NEVER envisioned 30-50 rounds a minute assault weapons!!

I like the slogan - "they were made for the battlefield - keep them there !!"
Posted by: carp

Re: Gun control points/arguments/debate - 01/17/13 05:11 PM

Right David,

The judge is not looking at the intent of the era the amendment was written. Like you said.

So really all guns before the amendment should be allowed , all guns (built) after should be banned laugh