Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

No, I haven't. As far as the US goes, I've only lived in the bluest of blue states, MA and CA. In Europe I've lived all over. Ireland, UK, Austria, Luxembourg, now the Netherlands - so I understand what it's like changing places and encountering different lifestyles and viewpoints. My experience is not yours, that's something great about GT, you get a lot of different viewpoints in the mix.

I can see what you're getting at -the cultural divide here isn't one that I have an awful lot of experience with. And that's true.

Well, thank you for acknowledging my point. I could illustrate the differences I have encountered if your interested. I have to admit though If i hadn't have seen the differences in how guns are perceived myself, I probably wouldn't have believed the differences either.

However, articles like the ones linked above are not serious discussions for reasons myself and mookie have pointed out. They don't further understanding, they don't seek comity or common ground. That's not to say the pro-gun-rights side doesn't have good arguments. They do! It just means that none of them are present in the writing of Mr Burrus.

I did hesitate to link because they are on foxnews. When I first wrote my post, I had originally included the caveat "if you can stomach fox news", but for some reason removed that sentence. I guess because I have bounced back and forth between CNN and Foxnews so many times, that I'm getting past the point where the bias on either one makes any serious difference to me. Funny, last year, I ONLY read CNN, and NEVER read fox news at all. Now I read them both equally. Go figure.

I did hesitate to link because they are on foxnews.

The problem isn't that it is on fox, the problem is the writer is full of crap.
You could have been CNN, WSJ, the BBC or VNN publishing it, it wouldn't matter as the pieces are still rubbish.

[August]

"Dangerous and unusual"

The AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other firearm and with millions of them in civilian hands it could not be considered at all unusual. Then there is the use of "and" instead of "or".

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Kptlt. Hellmut Neuerburg

There's a contradiction in terms if I've ever seen one. Its the job of every government to protect their citizens yet in this nation our government isn't allowed to do so because of way some people define the 2nd Amendment. As for the background checks in gun stores that to my understanding has been per individual states but hasn't existed at a national level, private sellers already use their own discretion as to whom they will or will not sell a firearm to. And could you elaborate how exactly a private seller can't knowingly sell to a felon or a mentally ill person without knowing if the person they are selling to is or isn't a felon or mentally ill? As for what happened in Boston, while it was horrific and tragic no amount of bills, rules, laws, or acts can 100% prevent bad things from happening, that's a fact.

To be correct they could try to pass said law only to have it voted down anyways as the current political climate would make it nearly impossible to do so. On the other hand to make a similar law where people volunteer to turn in their firearms at their discretion and not force them to turn in their firearms would gain much more acceptance. I cite two passages from the gun laws in Finland " Possessing a firearm without a license is a punishable offence. Unlicensed firearms may be confiscated by the police without punishment under a gun amnesty law, provided this happens under the individual's own initiative. Firearms surrendered in this manner are auctioned to the public or destroyed. It is also possible for the owner to get a license for the gun.", "Due to changes to the legislation, unregistered firearms may now be handed over to the police without punishment for illegal possession of a firearm, provided that the owner of the firearm does so of his own initiative. The firearm is then stored while the owner applies for a permit. If he chooses not to, it will be auctioned, or destroyed if it is deemed dangerous to use due to its condition. Historically valuable weapons are sometimes handed over to museums. Unlicensed weapons may be turned over to the police, without fear of prosecution. This practice is called "mercy year", as it originally started as a one-year experiment, which was very successful. Thousands of unregistered firearms and several tons of explosives and ammunition are collected each year. Many, if not most of these items are old "souvenirs" dating back to World War II or even the Finnish Civil War." As to the last half of this particular quote I cite from the Wiki article on the 2nd Amendment "In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

Care to elaborate on what "checks, etc" that the Founding Fathers put in place that violates the 2nd Amendment? And while the Founding Fathers didn't any specific type of firearm into the language of the 2nd Amendment there are some who use that fact as a lame excuse to try and say that they (The Founding Fathers) put that there to protect all firearms. Even though I have extreme doubts that the Founding Fathers could of foreseen the types of weapons that mankind uses to kill itself with today. Mankind inventing better ways to kill itself since the Stone Age.

"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"

That is what the Second Amendment says, clear, plain, and simple. The second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.Yes, it mentions militia but if you do some reading, you will find the founders also sought to facilitate the natural right of self preservation/defense, especially against tyranny, which they had lived under.They knew the nature of man, the nature of government, was to seek more and more power over time and diminish liberty.That is the spirit and purpose behind the second amendment and whole bill of rights, that is spelled out rather clearly in the above quoted line! To keep government at bay and protect the Republic.Sure, they could not imagine we would have such weaponry but they did not mention muskets or cannon etc because they knew things would advance and citizens should have proper weapons to guard against tyranny and protect one's life, liberty, and property.

The Heller decision says there is a "pre-existing right codified" in the Second Amendment which "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" Cruikshank was wrong and does not apply thanks to Heller, period.Quoting that decision, is a waste of time.

Quoting gun laws in Finland is absurd, they DO NOT apply, Finland is not the US, it has no value, no basis here in the US, the end.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I think those articles I linked make a valid point, only because I HAVE lived on both sides of the metaphorical coin I talked about earlier. There IS a cultural divide, and it's a deep one. You just don't really realize it until you've lived in and moved from a really large metro area in blue state to a much smaller metro area in a red state. How many people here can say they that? If I hadn't experienced that cultural divide first hand, I wouldn't be insisting upon it's existence. Just because something is not in your frame of reference, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I agree there is a cultural divide BUT that is what is great here, opinions aside, we have the supreme law, the constitution, which grants the right to bear and keep armed.This is not a privilege but a RIGHT that shall not be infringed.This makes the anti gun crowd incorrect.They don't like it? Push for an amendment to the US constitution to change it! The lack of knowledge about this goes to the overall "dumbing down" of our culture and foreign influences over the last century.Allowing collective, marxist thinking to gain enough traction that it has influenced a portion of the population.Some of it is ignorant, stupid, emotional reactionary politics after tragedies. For the last 60+ years if the influence of leftist so called "thinking" had no influenced our government, then children from the time they were young, would have been taught all about their constitutional rights and the importance but with these infiltration of such ignorant thinking, these rights are not emphasized as they should be.This allows for emotion based politics among the unwashed masses not not the profound respect for individual rights, especially the right to self defense that is at the basis of the second amendment!

"dumbing down".

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

This allows for emotion based politics among the unwashed masses not not the profound respect for individual rights, especially the right to self defense that is at the basis of the second amendment!

Unwashed masses. I will save America for you by giving everyone a bar of soap so that they may be cleansed be free from the yoke of communism.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Unwashed masses. I will save America for you by giving everyone a bar of soap so that they may be cleansed be free from the yoke of communism.

Does that count as ethnic cleansing?

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Unwashed masses. I will save America for you by giving everyone a bar of soap so that they may be cleansed be free from the yoke of communism.

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.

You really are unpleasant.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.

Sure that is not just a euphemism for people who don't share your opinion?

[Bubblehead1980]

Great quote of Margaret Thatcher about liberals who get personal, like most do.They don't argue specifics, they just attack.You're racist, bigoted, etc

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Great quote of Margaret Thatcher about liberals who get personal, like most do.They don't argue specifics, they just attack.You're racist, bigoted, etc

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

Two minutes separate these posts.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.

Elitist dumbing up of our precious kinder is what you're suggesting then. It's been done before and was something of a flop.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

It's a euphemism for the uninformed, ignorant, reactionary people who sadly, can vote. People who pay no attention until election year, know nothing of their rights, etc IE the average obama voter.

I know exactly what you meant by it.I was making fun of it.