RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events gun control

part of your (american) rights? or, part of your 18th century (american) rights?

I don't think that we need assault rifles to kill deer. It's not like they're shooting back or anything, but then again, I enjoy an afternoon at range sometimes myself. For me, shooting a gun actually has a relaxing and calming effect. It's kind of a zen thing (anybody who's read Zen and the Art of Archery knows what I'm talking about.)

Then again, in the past two weeks I've dealt with one homicide (just this morning we had a man walk into the McDonalds where his ex-girlfriend works and shoot her while she was standing next to her husband) and a damn close one (girl got critically wounded by her boyfriend, who killed himself immediatly afterwards, during a minor domestic argument.) I think most people are sensible and responsible enough that they can be trusted with handguns and rifles, but unfortunately there's that 1/10 of one percent who have to screw it up for everybody else...

... i dunno about all that...

im all in favor of those cool new police "toys" they're developing, that use non-lethal force. they're like cool batman weapons! a sticky goo thing, pepper paint bullets, EMPcarts / tasers, ... cool stuff.

im all for defending the constitutional rights, and, i think it'd be shameful for a new gun-banning law to be passed, which would take away hobbies and possessions individuals have had for years... however, i do think that the constitution is grossly outdated, both on this issue and many others.

quote:

---

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

---

To a lot of people, this is a little too vague. To some, it refers to private citizens rights to bear arms privately, and to others, it refers to military groups such as the National Guard. Myself, I'd have to go with the second option. Most people, when quoting the Amendment, only like to use the second half, which, I think, takes it out of context. When you read the whole Amendment, it seems to refer to "bearing of Arms" as part of a "Well regulated Militia" which is "necessary to the security of a free state." The problem is, since this is the law, the courts have to follow the wording and not the intention. Maybe our founding fathers should have used better grammer...

no wait...

seriously, tho, i think a lot of stuff thats in the constitution and/or the bible, for that matter, is in some serious need of a revamp of some sort. it worked great for the times, and, most of its basic foundations should (and do) still apply, but... times are very different, and holding on to something "just because" isnt always the greatest solution.

...foreigner...

my theory is "gravely" different from that one. i've heard it argued many times that if everyone in the country had a gun, everyone'd be all nice n'sweet, cuz no one wants to get shot.

which might be true! ... IF we were all well educated. and all had, unlosable jobs. ... and weren't crazy. and had no alcohol, etc, etc.

regardless of time period and weapon, there's always some fucker out there that really doesnt care about anything. whether he goes around beating people up, or stabbing them, or shooting them, he's still crazy, its not the weapon that kills (tho it IS the weapon that makes the klling easier - believe you me, stabbing is hard!).

again, im all for the implementation of now-possible future weapons, where police could, just as efficiently, protect a neighborhood, weilding non lethal, batman-like weapons (such as pepperspray paint ball guns, goo nets, EMP drones to short out cars, etc).

the reason?

(SPOILER SPACE!!! IF YOU HAVENT SEEN THE MOVIE YET, YOU MIGHT NOT WANNA READ BELOW!!!)

charlton heston's scene in tim burton's adaptation seems to serve only 2 reasons. 1: as a throw back to the original movie and its fans, and 2: to promote the power of "the gun"

the protest was, of course, against the NRA, feeling that charlton heston used this movie as a vehicle to get younger fans interested of guns, and respectful of their power.

seems a tad extreme to me.

However, I will concede all the above points, if the US government would outlaw many of the "souped-weapons" such as automated weapeons, armor-piercing bullets and the like. Or if there really was investigations and longer waiting periods for firearm licensure. Trust me you would hate to know how any psychiatric patients that are homicidal and still have a gun card!
And why handguns and concealed weapons? Why does a lawabiding citizen require their weapon to be hidden? Wouldnt a rifle be more intimidating to scare off those nasty bad guys? I tell you what it would sure prevent a helluva lot of school shootings.
And the arguement that these weapons are obtained illegally wont cut it. If the handguns, automated weapons et al were illegal then obviously the numbers manufactured would be cut as well as being regulated as to insure they only got to military and police enforcement. Sure some of it may fall through the cracks but it sure would decrease.

One more thing, I would love to see the stats showing how many crimes were prevented as a result of gun ownership and have that compared to how many accidental and planned injuries and deaths were caused as a result of same.

a 35 year old man one day realizes life stinks without a car. so, he decides he's going to get one. he goes down to the dmv, where he realizes he has to take a test in order to get the piece of paper that says he can drive. so, he takes the test and fails. frustrated, he goes home to rethink his situation. eventually, he figures, well, i guess i really DO need a car, and if i want it so bad, i gotta work for it.

so he studies the rules and laws of the road. he goes out with a buddy and takes a whole buncha practice trips to learn the handle of the car.

eventually, almost 2 months later, he goes back to the dmv, retakes the written and driving test, passes both, and gets cleared to drive a car.

2 months of forced training, forced licensing, forced registration, forced practice, and forced knowledge and respect.

that same guy wants a gun? he gets fingerprinted, waits 3-7 days, depending on the state, and is given the weapon.

thats scary.

Those who wish guns to be outlawed are aspiring to be the first victims of tyrants.

There are two reasons why the second amendment was made, even though some people try to convince me that there was only one (the first).

1. People needed guns to hunt for food.

2. People needed guns to protect themselves from power hungry tyrants from across the atlantic ocean.

And yes, I do believe people who intend to use guns for illegal purposes(homicide) would be able to get a hold of firearms, legal or not.

what i DO feel needs to be done is to ensure that guns arent so easy to get.

cars, like in my above example, are pretty frickin hard to get a license for. it involves becoming educated, learning responsibilities, being tested in two different standardized aspects, and overall, taking a month at minimum. and thats just getting the APPROVAL to get a car, it has nothign to do with the hassle of getting the car, itself.

guns should be no different!! if you want to collect them or hunt with them, fine, thats your right. but, you should be held accountable for it. each gun should have to be registered, just like a car. you should be forced to get insurance on these guys, and pay insurance costs, just like a car. you should be forced to take standardized written tests on gun laws, in addition to being forced to practice using and safely storing the gun.

i dont think thats too much to ask. it doesnt prevent anyone who really wants a gun from getting a gun. but it just might prevent someone, who's not really thinking clearly about it.

But I HAVE to ask you this: how is it possible that for drive a car you need a license, and you don't need one to use a gun?

personally, i think if guns were put on a par with cars, there'd be a lot less "casual" guns out there, ensuring that people who dont need them wont get them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by THE Franta:
Whats holding back current ammendments are the gun manufactorers.

---

As to the "National Guard" argument, that argument has risen in the last twenty years. Almost no serious anti-gun group uses it because const. scholars of all ideology have agreed that it holds no const. weight. It simply was not the intent of the FF (that's founding fathers, not Fantastic Four) to make it a national guard. The intent was to allow non-governmental groups to have guns to prevent a rise in tyranny. Think about the political climate of the times. The FF wanted to assure that the government was a government of the people by leaving a little fear of the masses in the hearts of the elite (which was suprising seeing as how the FF WERE to be be the elite).

quote:

---

As to the "National Guard" argument, that argument has risen in the last twenty years. Almost no serious anti-gun group uses it because const. scholars of all ideology have agreed that it holds no const. weight. It simply was not the intent of the FF (that's founding fathers, not Fantastic Four) to make it a national guard. The intent was to allow non-governmental groups to have guns to prevent a rise in tyranny. Think about the political climate of the times. The FF wanted to assure that the government was a government of the people by leaving a little fear of the masses in the hearts of the elite (which was suprising seeing as how the FF WERE to be be the elite).

---

My bad. That was just laziness on my part when I posted that. Maybe we should get a real lawyer in here...

good points, willie. tho i do think that the founding father's knew one day they wouldnt be the current team in power, and left the "gun option" open for them, as well, incase the newer breed went crazy.

regardless, i dunno what kinda difference it'd make now adays. is it a possibility that some remote hillbilly group could take out the government, were it to go crazy? i guess. i dont see it as a viable argument, tho.

but that was a nation of 10,000. we're now in a nation of 250 mil. big difference that would require a bigger grouping (considering our army is 1,000,000 strong in foot soldiers, alone.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Green_Lantern1:
I believe in gun control, but I do not believe that guns should be outlawed.

Those who wish guns to be outlawed are aspiring to be the first victims of tyrants.

There are two reasons why the second amendment was made, even though some people try to convince me that there was only one (the first).

1. People needed guns to hunt for food.

2. People needed guns to protect themselves from power hungry tyrants from across the atlantic ocean.

And yes, I do believe people who intend to use guns for illegal purposes(homicide) would be able to get a hold of firearms, legal or not.

---

I dont own a gun and have yet to be overrun by tyrants, thats why we have law enforcement agencies.

1)I dunno where you live but I go to the grocery store for food

2)I believe there are some Armed Forces in this country that can handle that problem. So why do we need guns now most especialy automatics?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Demian:
If the people in charge of gun control have guns, don't have anything to do with it.

I'm warning you.

---

I have no idea what this means

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sonhaven:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Demian:
If the people in charge of gun control have guns, don't have anything to do with it.

I'm warning you.

---

I have no idea what this means

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Demian:
Maybe there's more than one kind of tyranny.

I don't follow the logic of the government buy-back, Dave.

So the government in Australia took the semiauto longarms from the citizens. Which citizens? The law-abiding ones holding firearms licences.

How many violent criminals with illegally-held firearms went and handed theirs in? I'll have a guess... somewhere between zero and sweet F.A.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Danny:
By the way, anyone who uses the argument of hunting for sport to justify owning guns is a tool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sonhaven:
So....hunting is dangerous therefore out law it....along with bungy-jumping, skydiving, or any other extreme sport you can think of.

---