Glorifying Guns?

Re: More Gun control...so we can all enjoy the saftey of D.C

tony2481 wrote:

While there are other contributing circumstances, the localities that ban or severely restrict private gun ownership and possession lead our country in violent crime rates, and rates of violent crimes committed with guns.

This is one of the most absurd arguments I have ever seen. Of course they are high-crime areas and that is a major reason why they try more restrictive gun rules. Laughing

Logical Parody:

Paying more taxes obviously leads to wealth, after all, the most wealthy individuals tend to pay more taxes.

Quote:

With these fine examples of a failed policy, when will people decide to try something else?

Those are not examples that in any way indicate an inherent problem with the notion of gun control so they most certainly won't be a reason for people to "try something else".

As to the rest of the screed, it is an odd argument that nationalism should somehow weigh in on this issue in favor of guns. Trying to harness the national hubris for one side of the gun debate is just laughable.

"Beat your chest real hard! Doesn't that feel good? Now that is why we should have guns."

0 Replies

I apologize for not providing more information when i posted. The crime rates were much closer together when the D.C. gun ban was enacted. The FBI web site only publishes back to about 1986, which was ten years after the gun ban was enacted. But if you look hard enough, or really care, the crime and demographics were almost identical in the 60's and early 70s before the District's ban on guns. Arlington, the city of Alexandria, and present day DC were part of the original Capital city, as surveyed by the great George Washington. They are essentially in the same place, seperated by a river and a dozen bridges. Neither one has a particularly good reason for being more socially affluent, and the population density is identical. If you don't want to take my word for it, look up the facts that i have presented, and tell us what else could have caused this difference in the past 30 years.

BTW, the nationalism in the first paragraph was not an arguement supporting gun ownership rights, but is intended to discourage people from applying the good old "all the other civilized countries" counter-arguement.

0 Replies

Excellent response. I never considered the cause and effect of crime in the gun-ban cities of Washington DC and New York City and Chicago. It's good to know that the statistics changed after the gun bans were enacted.

It's interesting to see people from Europe posting about how superior their countries are because gun ownership is restricted. I've seen some people posting about how they can walk down the street at night in their country without worrying about being shot. They must think the US is a continuous war zone with bullets flying everywhere. Actually it's not like that at all. I don't mind walking around my city at night here either. But there are other areas in town where I would think twice before walking down the street, and I would venture a guess that every city in the world has unsafe areas like that.

I've always been too embarrassed to ask, but how can a city or state enact restrictive gun laws that seem to directly disregard the Second Amendment? Supposedly all powers not reserved to the federal government are given to the states, but I've always thought of this quote when looking at restrictive gun laws:

Quote:

What part of "shall not be infringed" didn't you understand?

Another example is the First Amendment. Supposedly we have freedom of speech, but here in Arizona the legislature enacted a law that says you can't say bad things about Arizona agricultural produce. It was laughingly called the "veggie hate crime" bill. And it would seem to be obviously unconstitutional, as would any state or municipal law restricting the right to keep and bear arms. So I don't understand that. Does anyone have a good answer for that?

0 Replies

tony2481 wrote:

If you don't want to take my word for it, look up the facts that i have presented, and tell us what else could have caused this difference in the past 30 years.

I will most certainly not pursue that red-herring. My point is that an assertion that the high crime rate has anything to do with the gun ban would be false, thereby indicating other circumstantial factors having nothing to do with guns (guns do not cause crime, they are tools used to facilitate crime) are influencial and recognition of said influencing factors will explain the discrepancy.

Quote:

BTW, the nationalism in the first paragraph was not an arguement supporting gun ownership rights, but is intended to discourage people from applying the good old "all the other civilized countries" counter-arguement.

Fair enough. The "all other civilized countries" is logically bankrupt in and of itself and such idiocy in an argument merits a counter argument

But I'm not sure it merits an argument in which our economic success is used to comment on our gun laws as there are more relevant factors that have much less favorable comparison. If the argument is made that we are doing something right I don't think unrelated success should be used as an example.

That's kinda like saying the baseball coach's decisions are sound because the football team is winning.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

I've always been too embarrassed to ask, but how can a city or state enact restrictive gun laws that seem to directly disregard the Second Amendment?

.....

So I don't understand that. Does anyone have a good answer for that?

Yes, joefromchicago does: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=646226#646226

0 Replies

Who the smeg is Ted?

0 Replies

Ted - would be Ted Nugent. The Motor City Madman. Loves Guns, Hunting, and loud music. Has a gorgeous wife Shemain, and often takes in children to teach them the finer art that is weapon safety and hunting skills.

0 Replies

Quote:

I've always been too embarrassed to ask, but how can a city or state enact restrictive gun laws that seem to directly disregard the Second Amendment? Supposedly all powers not reserved to the federal government are given to the states, but I've always thought of this quote when looking at restrictive gun laws:

Legal games, apparently it is no longer enough to just be in the Constitution, now the Supreme Court has to “incorporated” the right for it to really be there. Don’t ask me how that works, my brain ain’t twisted in that way.

0 Replies

Yes, and there are four different schools of thought on "incorporation" too, according to this page. I think the most interesting thing on that page was the discussion of the Dred Scott Supreme Court case. The court said that black people were not entitled to the privileges and immunities of US citizens, and it said that the privileges and immunities of US citizens are as follows:

"...the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

If a person believes that the Supreme Court has to interpret ("incorporate") each Constitutional amendment before US citizens can claim it as a "right," it seems to me that the Dred Scott case gives us the right to own and carry weapons everywhere, regardless of state law. And if a person believes that the Bill of Rights applies to US citizens no matter what the Supreme Court says, that results in the same idea. So the Arizona "veggie hate crime" law abridges my freedom of speech and is therefore unconstitutional, as is any state gun law that restricts my right to keep and bear arms.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

If a person believes that the Supreme Court has to interpret ("incorporate") each Constitutional amendment before US citizens can claim it as a "right," it seems to me that the Dred Scott case gives us the right to own and carry weapons everywhere, regardless of state law.

Dred Scott not only was dubious law when it was decided, but the fractured nature of the court's decision (there were seven justices, each of whom wrote an opinion) makes it questionable whether any position was embraced by a majority of the court. Furthermore, Dred Scott was effectively superseded by the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In short, you rely on Dred Scott at your peril. My advice: don't try out Tarantulas's advice yourselves, kids.

0 Replies

If you wish to carry a weapon, almost every state has guidelines to doing it legally. I recommend you check out http://www.packing.org if you truely wish to carry a handgun.

I didn't realize so many people on this forum actually were okay with handguns.

0 Replies

There seems to be a true "disconnect" in the perceptions which gun control opponents have about those whom they perceive as "the enemy." Personally, i learned to use firearms safely when still a small boy. In the army, i was never very good with the M-16 (hate that piece of crap), but i could drop you with an M-14 at 350 meters, no problem. I trained in the use of and qualified with the M1911A-1A automatic pistol, the M-79 grenade launcher and the M-60 light machine gun. I could field strip, clean and reassemble my M-14 on my poncho in under three minutes.

And i also consider gun control legislation not only justifiable, but necessary. Simply because someone does not oppose gun control legislation does not automatically mean that those people want to take your guns away. So many gun enthusiasts, though, must buy into NRA propaganda, and develop a "if ye ain't fer us, yer agin us" attitude.

An' it just ain't so . . .

0 Replies

Why is it when people start describing members of the NRA they mention, either by way of speaking or directly refering to them, as southerners? Do you really think that everyone in the south is a backwards, racist, country, redneck?

And unfortunately, thanks to the Diane Feinstein's out there, I would have to say that the appearance is that the majority of the people that are for "gun control" legislation actually DO want to come and take away my guns. Gun Control, actually would eventually lead to banning. Only tyrants that want utter control over their people try to remove the individuals right to own firearms. Hitler took away the peoples rights to own guns, and then many Jews were executed and worse.

And don't tell me that the Militia is the National Gaurd and the Reserves. This is Title 10 Subtitle A Part I Chapter 13 Section 311:

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)

The classes of the militia are -

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
"

0 Replies

the best gun controle, two hands on the weapon, know your target, and what is behind it.

0 Replies

saintsfanbrian wrote:

Why is it when people start describing members of the NRA they mention, either by way of speaking or directly refering to them, as southerners? Do you really think that everyone in the south is a backwards, racist, country, redneck?

I spent the majority of my childhood, and a good deal of my adult life in the South. Your bigotry is showing here--i used the language i used to describe stupid attitudes, not Southerners. Just a wee bit touchy aren't you? What stake do you have in the NRA that leads you to take offense so easily? This is precisely the kind of polarized attitude to which i object. Favoring the control of firearms is not equivalent to banning all guns, and yet that is the attitude of so many people i've met who are avid NRA members and anti-gun control supporters--North and South. It is entirely possible, despite what the NRA would like people to believe, to favor gun control legislation, and still support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. Your remark is patently offensive to me--i've spent a lifetime dealing with the bigotry of people outside the South toward anyone they perceive as a Southerner, and i don't need or appreciate your phoney-indignant sneers.

0 Replies

Every gun control advocate I've ever talked to wants to get rid of semi-automatic weapons. So, there's my beef. What the heck it wrong with them? Nothing, pull the trigger, it goes boom. Pull again, it goes boom again, until you run out of ammo. Pump shotguns, for example, are extremely difficult to use by the less able bodied.

Do you know that in many states crossbows are illegal even for disabled hunters who otherwise cannot hunt during bow season? Stupid.

By the way, I'm not disabled, but I do have arthritic shoulders that will eventually prevent me from using any form of pump shotgun.

emclean's point is well made. Know your target and what's behind it. Know how to safely handle, transport, and store your guns. That's gun control.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So many gun enthusiasts, though, must buy into NRA propaganda, and develop a "if ye ain't fer us, yer agin us" attitude.
.

That is a very country way of saying that "If you aren't with us you are against us." I currently live in the south and I am and NRA life member. I don't talk this way and neither do any of the NRA members that I personally know.

Any form of gun control that is inacted now could - and probably would lead to more and more restrictive control in the future. Do you know that the Assault Weapon Ban has nothing to do with the functionality of the weapon but only on the way the gun looks? Is that rediculous or what? Not to mention that there has only been 1 count them 1 killing by a legally owned machine gun. That was a police officer doing the shooting against a police informant.

Phony and idignant sneers? I think you better check yourself. Hollywood, music, TV. They all paint out southerners as backwoods deliverance types. Get over yourself.

0 Replies

There's nothing for me to get over--although you might need to get over yourself. Certainly Southerners have been badly portrayed in many a medium throughout the years. That is far less often the case within the last twenty years, although i know that negative attitudes persist in the North. But your assumption was unwarranted, and i suspect, motivated by a paranoid attitude.

I used that language because it was intended to sound stupid, because i consider the "thin edge of the wedge" argument, such as you have just advanced, to be the height of stupidity. Automobiles are regulated, and drivers must be licensed to legal operate one; and i know of no reasonable individual who claims that this is evidence of a conspiracy to outlaw automobiles.

I have neither praised nor condemned the language of any gun control measure, so your remarks are irrelevant to what i have advanced. That is that the support of the principle of the regulation of firearms is not evidence of a desire to outlaw firearms altogether.

0 Replies

Except that tree hugging liberals want to outlaw SUV's because they are bad for the environment. Except that more and more people are pushing for hybrid or electric cars because gas automobiles are bad for the environment. Except that there is nothing in the constitution directly relating to the right to keep and use automobiles. Except that there is this huge slipery slope of when we let some one limit our freedoms, we have none.

Paranoid? Maybe but is it an irrational fear if they really are out to get you?

0 Replies

Well, it appears that Bush won't get a chance to resign the assualt weapons ban, and since his stance on this is vote minded and wrong, I'm very happy for that.

0 Replies

Glorifying Guns?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know