[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

a reply to: joemoe
Your scenario was self defense. Show me one article where a blind person shot an intruder. Keep on moving those goal posts..

originally posted by: joemoe
So what is it really you are after if not disarmament?

try to keep up with the thread if you can´t hold back yourself replying to a post that was ripped out of context by you because it was in the middle of the conversation with DeafAlien....

Looking for an argument for the sake of arguing?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

That was a good flick. decades old.

I've been looking for verifiable statistics on how many crimes are stopped by guns per year. Pro-gun site say as high as 2.5 million. Anti-gun sites say it's only 70,000.

That means by even the lowest estimate, guns are used at least twice as many times to prevent crime than total gun deaths per annum.

If you only look at firearm homicides, that means guns are used almost 7 times more to stop crime then they are to take a life.

The benefits of an armed society outweigh the risks.

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: fencesitter85

I'm an Englishman...

That's about the point most of your readership will trail off.

I did think that was a risk, but am hoping people will be more mature. Just because I'm not American, doesn't mean I can't ask questions about American politics. If an American asks me about British politics, I won't tell them to shut up because they're not British. Life shouldn't work like that.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fencesitter85

Too many other people have better ways of stating their positions.

When you put restrictions on a right, it then becomes a privilege.

As for the age of the 2nd Amendment? Computers weren't around, so should we "re-do" the 1st Amendment as well?


Gun ownership is a right. I like it that way, don't see any need to change it.

Gun ownership isn't mandatory. If you don't want them, don't get them.


Now I'll turn the thread over to smarter people.

I never once said gun ownership shouldn't be a right. My question is about, for example, background checks - which you haven't addressed.

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: fencesitter85

Depression? That's a little overboard. And no, not all felons are serial murderers.

You can't give the government an inch cuz they will take everything. The public will be fighting with sling shots.

Basically, you can write all the laws you want on a piece of paper, but if someone wants a gun they will get it.

Law-abiding citizens are the ones getting punished and when that burglar shows up with his AK? What you gonna do?

1. I didn't say all felons are serial murderers. But if you've been to jail for threatening your wife with a gun, you shouldn't be allowed to own one.

Why?
Couples fight.
Some do alot more than others.
So unless he or she actually shot the other one, who cares.

You realize women are not above telling lies about the husband?

2. Depression - not overboard at all. It affects a hell of a lot of people and makes them act in a way which is often not in accordance with how they would normally act when not depressed. This is a fact.

Why do you care?
You the boss of everybody?

What about ropes and sheets and belts......all very hazardous to depressed persons.

3. Giving the Govt an inch meaning they take everything - assumption; no basis in fact, just your opinion, sorry.

Thanks all
FS85

Just your opinion too.

You know something we dont?

a reply to: verschickter

Here's the scenario.... in the US we do not need any excuse to buy firearms. We can buy it just because ... even if it's no reasons at all. If we want one we can have one as long that we are law abiding. I wish you can understand that but if not that is okay too .. maybe it's just too American of an idea for you to comprehend.

a reply to: joemoe

Here´s the scenario, you replied and took a single sentence from my post out of context and ignoring the rest of the conversation with DeafAlien. I told you that twice and the way your last post is worded, honestly I don´t expect you to be a person to have a decent conversation with, unlike DeafAlien.

You pull out of context, you move goal posts and in the end, you get personal. In the real world, you would be called an asshole but in the internet, it´s cool.

Grow up kiddy.

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: fencesitter85

Are you under the impression that the "assault" rifles (fully auto) are not well regulated?

It's one of the gaps in my knowledge, for sure - I only have anecdotal/second hand awareness of it, and welcome any info to educate me on it. Not being awkward here; I'm genuinely interested to learn - ta.

FS85

You really want to learn?

Spend a few hours watching Active Self Protection on youtube.

You might qualify for p.t.s.d. afterwards.
You will learn alot.

a reply to: rockintitz

Most folks who stop a crime with a firearm, if they haven't discharged it, don't report it. I didn't when I stopped the guy who was going to break down my door with a big ol' sledgehammer.

He looked in my little office window, spare bedroom, I put my revolver on the desk where he could see it, nothing more, he left. I went about the rest of my day.

We can be fairly certain that this happens on a fairly regular basis.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: DBCowboy

You can't fight the government now anyways...

Maybe the best thing to do is to have an amendment for home defence and hunting for food.
Or shooting the sh*t down the range.


You'll never have an F16 or a rocket launcher...
Or a predator drone.


The actual 2nd amendment as it stands is just a useless platitude.

In a traditional war you are absolutely correct, pretty sure the US never considered the Viet Cong a threat either..

You are also making an assumption that today's all volunteer military would be happy to go into the street and gun down citizens of the United States.

Many would refuse enlisted all the way into the leadership ranks, best case for the Fed is the military elects to sit it out.

To the OP...

There are plenty of rules on the books, in fact I would say to many... Veterans that sustained a TBI, and now their significant others do the book keeping for the family are having their guns confiscated... I haven't balanced my check book in probably 20 years, should I lose my second over that?

True Assault weapons require a Class 3 firearms licence, an expensive highly regulated bit of paper work that opens your home to random inspections when ever the Fed feels like it.

An AR-15 (something the Press calls an Assault weapon) is nothing more than a rifle chambered in .223/5.56 that has a military look to it...

Google image search a mini-14 ranch rifle, and then Mini-14 tactical... same rifle but one makes leftist flip out, the other doesnt.

My views on gun control, as stated by a meme:

a reply to: fencesitter85

Based on prior experience, I'm not going to say I believe this can become a fruitful conversation, but I'm willing to give it a try.

Before I address your specific questions, background: I live on a 90-acre tract in a rural area, where, save for my Mother, who I care for, my nearest neighbor is 1/4 mile away. The nearest store of any kind is now (since one closed recently) about 5 miles away. The nearest town of any appreciable size (large enough to have a franchise store) is ten miles away. Police patrols are rarely seen here. If an emergency call is placed, average response times are EMTs - 5 minutes; ambulance - 15 minutes; police - 30 minutes. We have wildlife all around us; about 80% of my place is heavily wooded and completely undeveloped.

Now to your points:

- If the Second Amendment is no longer applicable, then it can be amended. That's how things work here. The Constitution itself is a contract wherein the people and the individual states grant power to the Federal government. The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) is a strict limitation on that power in order to protect individual and states liberties. Just like a contract cannot be rewritten without approval of all involved parties, so too the Constitution must have approval of the people to be changed in any way, manner, shape, or form. This is done through an amendment process that is spelled out in the Constitution itself.

I happen to believe that the wording of the Second Amendment grants the right to all citizens to own whatever weapon they choose... up to and including a nuclear warhead on a ballistic missile. I also believe that is something that is undesirable. To be handled correctly, the Second Amendment must be amended itself to specify which weapons are and are not considered arms under the wording. I would strongly support such an amendment, as long as it did not go too far. Therein lies the problem: most go too far IMO.

You are picking and choosing where you apply historical context. True, modern weapons did not exist at the time of the writing, but the phrase "well-regulated" also had nothing to do with restrictions. The original meaning was closer to "well-stocked" than "well-restricted." The phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is indicative of the times, where the people might be called upon to repel an invasion from another country, as well as to resist domestic tyranny. Thus, it makes no sense in a historical context to state that the people need not have the same weaponry as a nation. To make that claim, one must look at modern context, where we do have a military at the ready.

- We already have background checks and waiting periods on some weapons; others are strictly illegal (despite the Second Amendment). For example, I have an old Mini-14 .223 semi-automatic that I used to use for hunting... that's right, for hunting. I had a 5-round clip that I left in the gun while hunting, and a couple of 30-round clips that were used to target practice. That was pure convenience; I could reload lead bullets until my clips were full, and target practice continually for a few hours. Yet, I remember the gun ban which banned all sales of the MIni-14 and the 30-round clips. I also remember my Senator at the time, Howell Heflin, standing up in the middle of the Senate and declaring "I don't know anyone who uses these guns for hunting purposes."

Whenever there is a shooting, there is usually an uproar to ban guns, and many would like to see an outright ban on all firearms. Still others would like to see gun ownership regulated to the point that owning a gun would become a privilege for a select few... of whom I am not convinced I would be a part of. As mentioned earlier, I live in a wooded area far from police protection; I may have to, at any moment, defend my home against a bear, a mountain lion, or more likely, a rabid squirrel or coon. We also have had packs of wild dogs to contend with, and should there ever be a crime in this area, we would have to defend ourselves for a good amount of time. That's just a part of life here, and it necessitates the readiness of a gun. Thus, I simply do not trust the government to provide common-sense regulation.

In the absence of common-sense regulation, my safety and that of my family relies on NO regulation.

- A similar argument can be made for a national gun registry. Do I trust my government to not oppress me in order to get me to give up my protection? No. Not in the least.

But beyond that, a registry would do little to stop crime. Criminals rarely buy their firearms at a licensed gun dealer and fill out all the paperwork and wait the waiting period... they typically steal weapons to use. So how would a registry be capable of tracking down the new possessor of a stolen .357, even assuming it was reported stolen? It couldn't, at least not until the gun is used in a crime... and by then, it's too late for the registry to be worth anything. So it becomes an exercise in futility taken at the risk of being used by criminals for targeting (especially if someone has a regular work schedule) or being used by an over-reaching government for anti-gun purposes beyond the letter of the law.

Those are my answers, and my primary concerns.

TheRedneck

You make some interesting points, but I think one of the more critical is off a bit.

You are correct that the weapons in use when the second amendment was written were different. But It was always assumed that the weapons used on either side would be somewhat comparable. Its not about what kind of weapons were in use, it was the idea that the people should be able to defend themselves against anyone who would threaten their freedom, up to and including their own government. And for reference, a well practiced musket man could reload and fire a musket in about 15 seconds. That seems incredible to us, but when that is the weapon of choice you get your skills right or you die.

Most people who believe in second amendment rights are in favor of gun control also. However, we often have to push harder and further than we would normally want in order to end up where we need to be. What we really need is education and understanding of all the issues, not the rhetoric and lies.

AR does not stand for assault rifle. Assault rifles are already banned in the US. Any time you hear a politician saying we need to ban assault rifles they are full of it. They want to ban guns that 'look' like assault rifles. In other words, plain old rifles. If they cant do that, they will try to ban the ammunition. They will try to ban high capacity magazines on the premise it will make the US safer completely ignoring the fact that it only takes a couple of seconds to swap regular magazines out.

When you cut through all the bs and the lies what you find is that the second amendment side of this issue is actually pretty reasonable. We want to close any loopholes, if there actually are any. (I never found one) We want background checks. We want proper identification required. The other side are the ones talking about "the bullet button on the side of the gun" and other such lunatic things.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I am so taking that image...

Perfect explanation...

a reply to: seagull

True, I just went with the most conservative estimate so I didn't get flamed.

NYT said it's only 67,000. As in, if we took guns away only 67,000 more people would be victims of crime every year.

But you are right, it is definitely higher.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

your meme is not consistent. She gets thicker over time and in the end she´s thin again. totally unrealistic.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

That meme is perfect.

Nothing will ever satisfy them until they only remain in the hands of the state.

A police state.

Three reasons.

T&C friendly.

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

youtu.be...

On a lighter side (or darker side???) take a look at those idiots who tried to rob a gun shop.
(Warning graphic content)

Darwinism at it's finest.

Just goes to show you that thugs don't even care here in America. Hence why we don't want to restrict the right.

a reply to: rockintitz