revel wrote:The next time there is a school shooting I hope you guys can sleep in the comfort of knowing that it was a kid that shot those people and he/she just used a gun and their parents should have done a better job of keeping the guns away from their kids.
Or perhaps those parents should have taught some values and a healthy respect for firearms?
Point is, revel, we have enough laws, and on the federal level, they're pretty good. If they're not being enforced, do we need more laws that are no more likely to be enforced, and may make criminals of some of us who don't keep current with new laws and new definitions?
I'm enjoying your participation, by the way.
Kids will be kids and if they want to show off or if they get depressed you can't watch them 24 hours a day. It is just a lot harder to kill people on a rampage with a knife or ramming a car in the school than it is to just simply pull a trigger which is probably why you don't hear about those kinds of things as much as a school shooting.
However much pro gun people like to brush aside the whole issue of school shootings and teenage violence it is there and it is real and it is a problem.
I think violence is made to enticing for young people from the age they are old enough to play with toys. It is not such a leap going from a toy gun to violent video games to hunting with your dad and then showing your gun off to your classmates and from there anything can happen.
thanks roger and I agree, we ought to enforce the laws on the books a whole lot better.
Every dad should take his kids hunting, if he knows how. Talk about a golden opportunity to teach them about life, gun safety, and the outdoors. Bow, shotgun, or rifle, it's all good. And you know where your food came from.
I think that I am just wired differently. I just don't see all that good stuff in hunting or any of these other points on the other side.
I could probably post that on every thread I go to here, but then what would I have left to talk about?
just mussing. think I will turn and read a good book for a change. I am listening to some sad songs from Elvis right now and I think it is getting me down.
According to Walt Hoppe (who, when I knew him, knew everything), mung is an acronym which stands for "mung until no good." It is, therefore, a transitive verb.
Now, about the assault weapon ban and all kinds of statistics. There has been an astonishing amount of swill sprayed about on these topics.
Part of the problem seems to be people starting with a conclusion and attacking or defending whatever is appropriate to help their cause.
If you look at the technical specs of the firearms affected by the 1994 law, you will see very clearly that: 1) they are not automatic weapons, 2) they differ only in cosmetic ways from firearms that were not banned, and 3) they are not even the most "powerful" class of firearms.
A desire to ban guns does not change these facts.
So what, exactly, was the purpose of the law?
I start with the presumption that, if someone wants to legislate that someone else can't do what he damn well pleases, then the burden of proof falls entirely on the legislator that the restriction is to the public good. If you can't prove it, then you don't have the right to legislate it. The standard of proof has to be a bit higher than "everybody knows..." or "you're stupid" or "I don't like..."
Does anyone dispute this presumption? If so, do you dispute it as a principle or do you embrace it when it helps support your own pet idea?
[ I can see the argument that "it's better to be safe than sorry" by passing a law like the 1994 ban, but that argument presuposes that the ban is "safe" and lack of the ban is "sorry." Perhaps it is the other way around. For example, by even the lowest estimate there are hundreds of thousands of people who, over the years, have defended their innocent selves against criminal attack by brandishing or even shooting a firearm, usually a handgun. Had they been unable to do so, they certainly would have been "sorry." What do you tell them if you legislate against private ownership of any firearm? ]
In the case of the "assault weapons ban" we may have the opportunity to determine whether it actually did any good. Did it?
Re: Rights
bburcham wrote:If you actually read the constitution, Amendment Two states- "A well regulated militia, being to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The amendment was made in the late 1700's when malitias were still around, this amendment does not give us the right to run around with assualt weapons, shooting at things.
It protects (not "gives us") our right to keep automatic assault weapons at home and bear them in the militia.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:considering that i don't know of any true sportsman that hunts with one of these things, i say renew. permanently.
considering that i had one pointed at my chest by a rapper / gangsa when i informed him he needed to pay in cash before i could let his recording session start, i say renew. permanently.
considering that it's called an "assualt rifle" and that is what it's intended for, i say renew. permanently
None of those are good reasons for violating our Constitution, IMO.
DontTreadOnMe wrote:there's a big difference between the 2nd amendment and arming the bad guys with something equal to or, better than the police.
And in this case, the issue is the Second Amendment.
dyslexia wrote:so the reason Dick Cheney voted against banning armor-piercing ammo (cop killers)was?
I don't think I have ever heard his reason for doing so.
I don't know why he voted against banning "handgun AP" ammo.
Maybe he foresaw that it would be twisted to ban assault rifle AP ammo, in violation of our gun rights.
Cheney never voted against any law barring the killing the cops.
au1929 wrote:Quote:Sorry about your experience, but why do you believe that the Founding Fathers put the 2nd Amendment in place for purposes of sports and hunting?
They put it in because of the environment at the time the were living in. Times change, situations change and the reason for owning automatic weapons no longer exists.
The reason exists so long as the Constitution mandates it.
And I don't think "changing times" justifies rolling back constitutional rights.
au1929 wrote:The militia they were speaking to IMO is today's guard and reserves.
The Guard and Reserves fail to qualify as the militia in a couple ways. First, members do not keep their weapons at home. Second, they go fight overseas, and if they were the militia, they'd be limited to enforcing the law, repelling invasion, and suppressing insurrections (duties that tale place without leaving US territory).
roger wrote:Dunno, Dys. I thought bullets with steel, carbide, or depleted uranium had long been outlawed.
They were outlawed for handguns, and the law was twisted to cover ammo used for assault rifles.
They have not been outlawed for most other rifles.
oralloy
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: circa 1660
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
How and in what way does the Guard and reserves not qualify as militia?
The constitution was written at a different time in history. When our only defense was the militia. You must have heard of the minute men. The concept that the constitution was written in concrete and is not subject change is bogus. Do you think by any stretch of the imagination these gun owners would ever be called upon to bring their weapons and join a militia. It is just a ploy to allow the gun owners to keep their toys.
au1929 wrote:oralloy
Main Entry: militia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: circa 1660
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
How and in what way does the Guard and reserves not qualify as militia?
They serve overseas, and their members do not keep their arms at home. Both violate the rules mandated for the militia by the Constitution.
au1929 wrote:The constitution was written at a different time in history.
So?
au1929 wrote:When our only defense was the militia.
No, we could have kept up a standing army if we had wanted to.
au1929 wrote:The concept that the constitution was written in concrete and is not subject change is bogus.
You are free to push for a constitutional amendment if you wish.
au1929 wrote:Do you think by any stretch of the imagination these gun owners would ever be called upon to bring their weapons and join a militia.
If the Constitution were upheld on the issue, they'd have to right to join the militia if they wanted. Doesn't matter if they were called or not.
au1929 wrote:It is just a ploy to allow the gun owners to keep their toys.
Yes. So?
revel wrote:There is absolutely no logical reason for a citizen to have an assault weapon except to kill a lot of people in the quickest amount of time possible. The feeble excuse that people like them in their dumb gun collections, is well, transparent.
Gun collecting is a valid reason people have these guns for.
So are target shooting, varmint hunting, and self-defense.
revel wrote:As for the trite arguement that because people have them they may as well make them legal, people break laws all the time, should we do away with all laws?
What about the argument that the Constitution protects our right to have them?
au1929 wrote:In this entire discussion not one gun enthusiast has come up with the tired gem "Guns do not kill people-people do." I say since we can't get rid of people we should take the next logical step and get rid of the guns.
But as the "tired gem" notes, getting rid of guns won't solve anything, since it is people that are the problem.
D'artagnan wrote:This debate amuses me. The gun nuts (forgive my bias here, or don't, I really could care less) fill the thread with detailed info on the various guns as though their superior knowledge (or ability to appear knowledgeable) should end all discussion.
This is because when points that are made based on incorrect knowledge, supplying correct knowledge is the best way to refute the points.
D'artagnan wrote:Why is it, I wonder, that police chiefs and officers tend to speak out in favor of the ban on assault weapons?
It is not unusual for police officers to oppose civil rights when they make their job harder.
I expect that if they thought there was a shot at legalizing it, the same officers would speak out in favor of being allowed to beat confessions out of people.
Also, there are plenty of officers out there who don't support such violations of our rights.
oralloy wrote:But as the "tired gem" notes, getting rid of guns won't solve anything, since it is people that are the problem.
Quite right. That's why it's time to start getting rid of people.
Jeez, oralloy, are you going through weeks of this thread and rebutting every point you disagree with? I'm impressed!
Not by your argument for guns, but by your doggedness...
oralloy
Quote:U.S. Constitution, Amendment II
(also known as the Second Amendment)
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.
Where is the restriction for use outside the US? How can you possible consider a bunch of gun enthusiasts a well regulated militia?
