posted
Well why not? We've done every other controversial topic recently.
I have a friend who is a member of the NRA. We were talking recently, and he actually espoused a much more moderate opinion than I was expecting. I need to talk to him again to post the details, but he had what I viewed to be a relatively moderate plan mapped out in theory.
I believe some assault weapons would remain banned. He would allowed concealed carry in all 50 states, citing the fact that crime shifts from violent to nonviolent crime when this happens. It doesn't lower the crime rate but shifts the type of offense. To compensate for the anti-gun lobby, he would also require instant mandatory background checks for purchases of any firearm or amunition. Dealers of course would be under different requirements, but a flag would pop up at a predetermined rate, say if you bought 30 guns within a month. You could also get licensed as a collector and increase your purchase limit before the flag, but that would also require more extensive background checks.
I was surpised that he didn't have a problem with 'big brother' doing the background checks, but it does sound more moderate than most positions I've heard out there as well.
posted
I would support gun control, except for that pesky little amendment that gives us the right to bear arms, and I don't like the idea of the Bill of Rights being ignored, even if it is for something that would make us safer.
Not that my opinion really matters at all, but there you go.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
blackwolve:"I would support gun control, except for that pesky little amendment that gives us the right to bear arms"
What does one have to do with the other? In what way does the regulation of firearms necessarily violate the second amendment?
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know that much about this issue, but most people I've talked to (granted high school kids ina very liberal city) support making firearms illegal, which would violate the 2nd Amendment. I assumed that was the majority opinion.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, I like your friend's ideas. When I've made firearms purchases, they've always run computerized background checks.
I can't believe it. i'm actually posting in a thread about a serious topic. What's this world coming to.
I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but feel that there have to be limits on peoples right to bear arms. For instance, there are som people who can't legally own firearms, such as convicted felons or those who've been declared legally insane.
The suggestions of your friend sound acceptable to me. Just my 2 cents.
Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The constitution guarantees me the right to own a flamethrower that shoots chocolate 100 dollar bills, and anyone who says otherwise is a commie. Or possibly strong sad. Though I suspect he's a commie too.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want guns in my home, but I believe folks have the right to have them. Though I hate to break this to the staunch 2nd amendment activists... the British Monarchy can still kick your personal butt. (Okay, so I get my views on the matter from the Simpsons.)
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know we've had this subject come up before, because I remember typing my opinion.
So I won't share my whole opinion here.
But I will say that is it sad that there is no possible way they can keep guns away from dangerous people, no matter what government tries to do.
My ex was a very violent man when I was married to him, and he once pulled a gun on me to threatened me. However, I know he has full legal right to go purchase a gun if he wants to -- he has nothing on record that would prevent that.
If they could keep guns away from people that have serious anger control issues, then many domestic violence tragedies might be averted.
But that is not realistic -- you cannot legislate what "might happen" with a person with a volatile emotional state.
posted
I think most members of the NRA are actually pretty moderate on the issue of gun control. The orginization just gets a bad reputation becasue of it's policy of building a cushion around their true beleifs by ephasizing radical viewpoints. I mean who cares about ones right to own a sport rifle if you are busy argueing about assault rifles?
As for the second amendment arguement..that was written in a time when the ultimate in military fire power was the musket. People then wanted a way to make sure that if the new government got out of hand they could fight back. Today the arguement is kinda mute when Uncle Sam can land an Apache attack helicopter on your front lawn. Have all the guns you want, he wins.
Me? I support the NRA, but not officially. I would be a member but I am too lazy. I like guns so I say we should have 'em but there are logical limits. Who really needs a chocolate spewing flamethower anyhow?
posted
What BannaOj said is almost what we already have. At least in Utah, every time you purchase a firearm, they do a background check, unless you have a concealed carry permit, and then they've already done the more extensive background check and have your fingerprints on file. That alone is a reason for a lot of people to get concealed carry permits out here -- you don't have to pay an extra $20 for the background check when you purchase a firearm.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Well, call me crazy, but I think that if a so-called "right" in the Bill of Rights allows you to bear arms, and you consider this being unsafe it's about time you question that Bill of Rights. In my opinion, you are about to confound a law with the ultimate truth. There is no such thing as an ultimate truth...
Anyway, I must tell you that I come from Romania and I currently study in France. To my knowledge, neither of these countries has such an open view with regard to firearms as the US and frankly, I wouldn't want them to. This is just to give you an idea of my background and it's influence on me.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every single right enumerated in the Constitution is regulated in some way. Why should the right to bear arms be any different?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was in college at the U of U, there was a guy running for Governor of Utah who wrote a letter to the school newspaper. He was a nut.
His stated position on gun control was that, if he were elected governor, he would not even be able to debate the issue, because of his oath to uphold the Constitution. In his view, the Second Amendment prohibits all regulation of firearms, period.
Thankfully, I think that very, very few people agree with that interpretation.
I think most people actually have a very moderate view on this issue, although there are vocal minorities on the fringes. I think there are legitimate purposes for owning and using firearms, and the right to do so is guaranteed to all citizens (except felons) by the Constitution. I think that there are classes of weaponry that have no legitimate connection with those Constitutional rights, and that they can and should therefore be outlawed. I think it is entirely reasonable for the government (state and/or federal) to conduct background checks, register guns, issue licenses, etc.
And if any nut with a concealed-carry permit ever pulls out his gun to protect me from a criminal, I will personally punch his lights out.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13, was your post directed at me ? If so, I'll restate what I said in the above post: I don't think people SHOULD have the *right to bear arms*. I lived and live in societies not guaranteeing this right and I'm happy with it.
I should also mention that this year I studied American culture & civilization and one of the topics was *gun control*. So while I haven't lived in your country, nor do I pretend to have full (on near full) knowledge on the subject, I'm at least familiar with it. (Btw, the teacher was Californian, not French )
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
It is actually quite easy to beat any sort of gun pointed at you that is within arms length or one step beyond.
snipers are the scary people.
AJ
I also believe (but will have to double check) that Utah's gun laws are more lenient than many other states. The other thing that can happen is that individual counties and cities can microregulate to make it much much more difficult to own guns.
The law abiding people do go through all the regulation headaches for the most part. The criminals don't.
posted
I do not have any guns at my house. I respect them to much.
I have two friends who are very gun literate. One is a card carrying NRA member. He has bought guns on line and at trade shows, where background checks are not required.
Even though it would hurt some of his trading, he is 100% for background checks as well as licensing gun owners, and requiring them to take gun safety tests before every purchasing a gun.
Most of the people he deals with agree with him completely.
It is the 14 year old kid who waves the gun around like he's in a Rap Video that is libel to accidently kill some other kid. A safety training class might save a few lives.
PS, has any one else ever been to a gun & knife show? Its like GenCon for nazi's.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I have indeed been to a gun show or two. I went with a postal worker.
I met mostly sane and reasonable people at the shows I went to, but there are also the idiots who start salivating over what is essentially meant to be a "tool."
I don't think I would have guns in a household with children in it. I just can't think of an effective way to ensure that they don't get their hands on them. Even locked in a safe and with trigger locks installed, I have these scary thoughts of Junior getting out the power drill to make it so he can fire the thing. If he really wants to, he'll find a way.
I know, I know...lots of kids grow up around guns, learn gun safety and are just fine with it. It's definitely a bias of mine that I think kids & guns don't mix. If it wasn't the kids living in the house, it'd be their friends.
I also don't believe guns are useful for home protection. I think they are fun to shoot for target practice and that everyone should know the basics of gun safety, even if they don't own a gun. Just to be ready for the revolution when it comes. Or to deal with a Terminator...
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay -- how many Hatrackers have lost immediate family members to murder, with the perpetrator using a gun? *Farmgirl raises hand*
How many Hatrackers have had a gun pointed at their head, and truly believed it would go off due to the anger of the person holding said weapon? *Farmgirl raises hand*
So you would think, with all that, I would be a huge advocate of gun control.
While I do think gun registration & permits, and background checks are all good, and I support most of those measures (haven't read up on all of them), I realize you really can't realistically legislate gun ownership. It just isn't enforcable. Period.
Although my dad was killed by a man with a gun, my dad liked guns. He had a healthy respect for them, and taught me the proper operation of one. He never had to draw one on someone until the day he died, and it looks like he was down before he could even do that.
Gun control would not have saved my dad. His killer was a kid who stole/borrowed a gun from his uncle, and had no prior record.
I have owned guns in the past. I do not currently own a gun, and no longer like firing them. I got rid of the only one I had (a .22 rifle) when I had my first baby. I didn't want to worry about having it in the house and worry about the kids finding it or curiousity getting the better of them, or having to lock it up all the time. I just really didn't have a NEED to have one, so I got rid of it.
And I will probably remain gunless.
Although I don't understand some people's hobby of collecting all sorts of guns, I give them that right, as long as they aren't harming other or being careless with them.
posted
Farmgirl, I once had my father, during an argument, drag me into his bedroom, hand me one of his 9mm and tell me to shoot him.
I still enjoy target shooting. Though, if I ever owned my own gun, I think my friends would kill me themselves.
*flips them off*
But gun control wouldn't stop the violent crimes--those weapons aren't usually obtained legally. I don't think. Should look that up before I state it as fact.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Mack, you're pretty correct. Also, the whole "assault weapon" thing is literally about show. Real Assault Weapons are fully automatic, and you have to go through a special security check and pay a hefty tax to own them. No personal firearm is illegal, BTW, if you have enough money and can pass a strigent enough security check
Posts: 2112 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
While gun control doesn't stop violent crimes I would bet that it reduces deaths in crimes of passion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would bet that it reduces deaths in crimes of passion
Fugu, I've been thinking about this comment of yours all night -- and still for the life of me I can't think of any instance where it might be true.
Crimes of passion -- I think of that like: man comes home and finds wife in bed with another man. Pulls his gun and shoots them both.
Now gun control wouldn't have had any effect here -- obviously he already owned a gun -- probably legally if he had no prior record.
Now if you are saying that in the above scenario, he runs out to BUY a gun -- and you think the waiting term might delay that -- well, I still think of running out and buying a gun immediately as being "premeditation" and not a "crime of passion" because in that scenario still he has plenty of time to think about what he is about to do, waiting term or not. If he goes out to purposefully purchase a gun just to kill someone, then I see that a premeditated murder, not a crime of passion.
Most domestic shootings & crimes of passion occur using guns these people already owned before the incident occurred. In that scenario, the gun control measures don't have much affect.
It is almost impossible to know who is going to "wig out" and shoot someone. I mean - -that is like a weird version of Minority Report. If we could predict this, then we wouldn't let them have a gun around. But basically, we don't know how to tell is someone is the type of person to pull a gun during an emotional scene, and we can't prosecute them before it happens.
So other than those people who have already been convicted of criminal offenses, I don't see how we keep these crimes from happening through gun control. Current gun control already supposedly keeps known criminals from purchasing a gun easily.
Don't misunderstand and think I'm against gun control. Purchasing a gun is a big decision and I think a lot of thought should go into it -- so I think the waiting term is a good idea. No one needs to buy one to have IMMEDIATELY -- we just are used to instant gratification, and some people don't like having to "wait." Sometimes I think there are many other items they should have waiting periods for -- so we don't do so much impulse purchasing!
I am against the NRA and most that it stands for -- as an organzation. I have several friends who are members, and I'm not against them -- just the organization. The NRA has in the past come out many times in favor of legalization and making publically available such things as "cop-killer" body-armor piercing bullets. I just don't see that as necessary for your everyday run-of-the-mill sportsman or gun enthusiast. That is terrorist weaponry.
posted
I actually have no inclination to own one. Mostly because I live in the city and it isn't like I can target shoot in my backyard. Firing range works fine for me.
Oh, maybe I'll go today!
And Sara, you could take me. I'm actually very reluctant in real life to hurt anybody. Unless I'm directly threatened or someone in my care or a defenseless person is threatened, I'm not a worry. Okay, maybe if we're playing a sport. I'm sorta ruthless in sports, but I'll be the first to help you up off the floor.
And I'll have you know, I haven't been suicidal in over six months. Almost a year. God bless lamictal. And for mania--ha! it was ADHD. God bless Ritalin LA.
Better living through chemicals. Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to own a gun and know how to use it. But then again, I also like knowing my own body can be a deadly weapon. I just think that knowing things like that can be useful.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
" The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" People, it doesn't get more obvious than that, shall not be infringed as in shall not be made illegal you stupid little liberal control freaks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted
Wow, Rhaegar, it's all clear now! Your incredibly intelligent post has made me realize how stupid my liberal idea that there should be some regulation of guns really is. Thank you.
edit: Oh, and maybe it would be better to quote the full second amendment rather than taking it out of context, hmm?
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.
quote:It is actually quite easy to beat any sort of gun pointed at you that is within arms length or one step beyond.
I have had training with how to do it. It is not difficult -- If you succeed. The problem is that they have to just move their triger finger 0.25 inches in the same amount of time that you have to either move your entier arm far enough to reach the gun. It's a losing proposition. It's even worse if you have to take a step also.
But yes, holding a gun on somebody within arm's reach like you see on TV is pretty ignorant.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have guns and know how to treat them. They are like any of the other deadly tools I own, my car, my circular saw, and so on. I respect them and am careful with them. In the south guns are very natural and normal things to have, like cars.
Gun control is silly because anyone with a lathe can make a gun. The technology to make guns is very simple. There's no possible way to control it. All you do by making it difficult to own a gun legally is make for fewer law abiding people who have guns. So the criminals with guns go unopposed. Not such a good idea.
If someone went postal around here, someone else would probably be able to take them out pretty quickly. Guns are ubiquitous in this area. I feel much safer knowing that so many law abiding people around here have guns. It makes it a lot harder for the criminals to do what they want unopposed.
Posts: 5509 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
and how do you feel about drugs and the ease with which they can be manufactured?
actually, I was more curious about the cultural attitudes regarding guns and gun control. less of a logical thing, than an upbringing thing. places with gun control (europe - and I expect they have lathes) have arguably fewer casualities as the result of gunshot.
hunting is still an endearing part of our western expansionist culture. blazing away at our downright recalcitrant heathen neighbors has become steadily less so (not very endearing). self-protection or paranoia?
posted
fallow, you're right in your assumption that European countries have less casualties from gunshots. And, as I already said in this thread, we have a very different idea on people's right to own guns.
However, I've just read an article in a Romanian newspaper saying that they're going to issue a new law about guns. Until now, besides hunting firearms, the only people allowed to carry a gun were policemen, the military, statesmen and magistrates. They are going to add "whoever can prove before a judge that he is in imminent danger" (?!). Of course, there are other conditions concerning age, criminal record, etc., but the fact remains: they are on the road to allowing more and more people having guns. Add this to the latest survey showing that Romanians are among the most frustrated and depressed (due to bad jobs, money problems, and so on) in all Europe and you can see where this can lead... Not after this single law, but perhaps as gun laws will become more and more permissive... Or maybe that's just me being pessimistic about it ?!
The main point is: do we need the law ? It's not like Romania is storming with guns, you'll never see gang fights which will go beyond someone holding his poor knife out just to *show'em who's da man* ! The government says they want this law in order to get closer to the European Union's own gun policy. So I ask: do you harmonize legislations just for the sake of it ? Yeah, forget the context, let's just all have the same laws ! Why ? Because the EU ordered so ! Never argue with your boss... Sheesh...
posted
Guys, any law whatsoever having to do with any or all legislation about the regulation, control, banning, etc of firearms is in direct contradiction with the United States Constitution. It's as simple as that, it is both stupid, illogical, and illegal.
Dan_raven
quote: I have two friends who are very gun literate. One is a card carrying NRA member. He has bought guns on line and at trade shows, where background checks are not required.
You have two innacuracies here, one if he bought a gun online or via mail order it would have to be unusable as i filled in barrel, or a part of a gun such as the barrel itself, it is illegal to mail order a firearm, two bacground checks are required for trade shows, gun shows, pawn shops, gun shops, the only time it is not illegal is when a private perosn sells to another private person in his own house.
Rhaegar
[ March 07, 2004, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Guys, any law whatsoever having to do with any or all legislation about the regulation, control, banning, etc of firearms is in direct contradiction with the United States Constitution.
I agree with Raeger on this point. In fact, I would go further. Any law regulating or banning the sale or ownership of any arms violates the 2nd Amendment. That includes nuclear arms.
The founding fathers had no idea what sort of weapons would be made possible by future technology. The 2nd Amendment is obsolete and needs changing.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
