The Gun Control Debate on ATS

I am sorry but there is no compromise.

The heart of the matter is that violent people exist.They always have and always will.
By limiting via gun control a persons ability to defend themselves you violate numerous rights
that we as Americans have.
You force law abiding citizens to pay the price of criminals and the mentally ill.
You take away from us what is a founding element of America ---Don`t Tread On Me

There is no legislation on the books now ,nor will there ever be,that can stop a person intent on evil
from committing evil.
There is no law or idea that will guarantee that people with ill intent will not get one of the roughly 300 million guns in the USA,while a law abiding citizen remains unarmed.

There is no amount of censorship that can make a person unlearn how to make black powder or roll steel or use flint.

You cannot put the genie back in the bottle.
More people die -including children-from car crashes every year than from guns. A 2 ton vehicle travelling at 50 miles an hour is a lethal weapon.A tank of unleaded premium has the explosive power of a few sticks of dynamite.
A gun,any gun,is basically a more up to date version of a rock thrower.It is not evil.It is not the bad guy.It is a tool.
Like any tool,how its used determines the result.
I know that mass shootings are emotional events,but you cannot use that as an excuse to undo the Constitution of these United States,and you cannot claim to be in America if the Constitution gets undone.

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by Shdak

 

I'm pretty much in agreement with your opinions, with clarification!

Semi-automatic "Assault type weapons":
What could we agree on or propose as features that sensibly defines the term?
I own a "tactical" ruger 10/22 with bipod, rails and a 25 round capacity factory magazine that "looks like an assault weapon" but it's still just a "black" .22 caliber target/plinking/varmint just-for-fun rifle.
Personally, I have a hard time allowing that weapon to be classified as an assault rifle, especially given there are pistol variants using the same magazines.
Perhaps proposed restrictions based on cartridge size/type/caliber might be in order?

State Militia
Other than the National Guard, I'm not so sure there are 50 "state militias" - what about local militias? "Private" militias? "County" (or parish) militias? Isn't the concept of a militia basically drawing on every able-bodied man with arms (firearms) - otherwise known as the general public? I don't have any suggestions on this one because I'm in the dark on what states have militias, although we have a local militia unit near here, it's not connected to the "government" in any way.

Please don't take this as a criticism or disagreement, I seek clarification and qualification in order to be able to intelligently agree or disagree. Thanks for your post!

ganjoa

You are correct 50 militia's would not work......some states are alot more populated than others and/or larger in area. As a side note awesome post Gauss, and you are right being unable to accept a compromise makes a fascist of anyone not willing to do so. I think most logical people can agree changing the Constitution is not something to be done willy nilly and in my opinion is not even open to debate. However, a logical compromise would be some legislation on the storage of firearms and that could work and should be acceptable to anyone open the the idea of compromise. IMO labeling people as unfit is a dangerous slope and should also not be explored as an option it makes more sense to just fix mental health care instead as that is the real issue there. If you belong in an institution then that is where you should be regardless of who picks up the tab concerning cost. Last I checked institutionalized people do not have legal access to firearms. Anything on this topic discussed is against common logic and pointlessly redundant as it is something that common sense should dictate without the need of yet more pointless laws, we have enough of those already and should gut the entire legal system to remove all the tape it has accumulated for 200+ years.

The problem is caused by our culture and it has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with kids and how they are trained. How they must NEVER be punished. If you do so the state will take them away. What the children learn is that they can do anything they want with no consequences that matter. They must never lose or it might hurt their self-esteem. So when they become adults they have never really learned anything and believe they can do whatever they want. What do you THINK they will do?

So long as they keep us fighting about guns our kids will be in danger. Guns are not the problem. Our culture, how we are forced to raise our kids, what they are taught in school, these are the problems. It is just simpler to blame guns, video games, or movies.

reply to post by Gauss


Compromise is for the weak, for those who are willing to give just a little more if their arm is twisted just a little bit tighter by the opinions of others. When you "give a little ground" to those that would love nothing better than to enslave you to their wills, they will always return to claim just a little more ground, and then just a little more until they have finally stripped you of all the ground that you once stood upon and called your own.

There are a multitude of reasons why the Second Amendment contains the statement "shall not be infringed". One of those reasons is to effectively prevent the opposition to gun ownership from taking that ground from us, either a little at a time or as a whole. Any politician who writes or votes in favor of legislation to regulate the people's rights to keep and bear Arms in America makes an infringement upon the people's rights as they are guaranteed us in the Second Amendment. Any legislation that is passed into law regulating guns in America is, in fact, unlawful.

I assure you, my friend... When confronted by an armed aggressor, chances are slim to none that the armed aggressor stopped to read and follow the laws when he prepared his Arms to be used against you. Why on earth would you, the one who will be fighting for your very life... why would you think for a moment that you have to obey some limiting or restrictive gun laws when preparing to fight for your survival?

It just wouldn't make any sense at all.

reply to post by Gauss
Was the first murder weapon a rock?.................just saying.

I've heard quite a few people advocating for laws to "secure" or lock up one's guns in a safe when not in use.

But it makes no sense for me to lock my guns up, as I wouldn't be able to use them if it were necessary - a locked up, unloaded gun is useless. I guess you could say my handguns are in constant use in my home. Of course, I have no kids, very few visitors, extensive physical security and DOGS in the compound and several handguns in various rooms - but no gun safe.

This wouldn't be a line-in-the-sand issue for me, I'll buy a safe if required - but it's not going to be used often except for the long guns - and they will not be unloaded.

ganjoa

There should be no debate,

It's a natural right to be able to protect oneself.

reply to post by Gauss


2nd Amendment Discussion after today's Shootings in Connecticut.

The problem is NOT guns, let me explain why. Guns, like baseball bats, golf clubs, fireplace pokers, samurai swords, bowling balls, potato launchers, cars - trucks - boats - RV's - airplanes, bows and arrows, kitchen knives and so on and so forth, are just tools that are used to do particular things. When these tools are used improperly, people get hurt. Now, its not the tools that are to blame. Its the IDIOTS operating the tools. So, please understand, it is NOT GUNS that are dangerous, they are only tools, it is the IDIOTS MISUSING them. For every group of statistics that you can quote that prove your position, I can give you 10x more that prove mine. So where does that leave us? At a stalemate of sorts. Who is right and Who is wrong?

Confiscation of Guns would make the founding fathers roll over in their graves. They gave us the 2nd Amendment so that :

0. We could hunt for food
1. We could defend ourselves
2. We could defend our families
3. We could defend our country
4. We could defend our property
5. We could take down TYRANTS and TYRANNY.

You fail to understand that when our families came here from Great Britian, King George did not allow them to own weapons because if he did, they would have executed him for the rotten crap that he pulled on them in an abuse of power.
So, they wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights to guarantee that we would indeed never have to suffer the pain of TYRANNY again.

If every person age 18 or older were required to buy, register and carry a concealed weapon, we would have a lot less crime than we do today. Think of this, that 20 yr old is seen walking up to the school armed to the teeth. Teacher alerts other teachers and before he has a chance to enter the school, they've drawn their weapons on him and possibly disabled him or killed him saving 26 lives in the process. A guy walks into a bar or stop n go store and pulls a gun. 3 people inside are also armed. He backs down immediately or dies.

These are the things that we are faced with every single day. However, in states where guns are very prevalent, there is very little crime. Statistics on Australia after their forced gun grab indicate crime has risen tremendously since it took place. Before that, there was very little crime at all.

So you see, statistics are numbers meant to support which ever side they are made for.

The bottom line, if you give up your right to bear arms, you walk right into the hands of TYRANNY without a way to end it.

Originally posted by ganjoa
I've heard quite a few people advocating for laws to "secure" or lock up one's guns in a safe when not in use.

But it makes no sense for me to lock my guns up, as I wouldn't be able to use them if it were necessary - a locked up, unloaded gun is useless. I guess you could say my handguns are in constant use in my home. Of course, I have no kids, very few visitors, extensive physical security and DOGS in the compound and several handguns in various rooms - but no gun safe.

This wouldn't be a line-in-the-sand issue for me, I'll buy a safe if required - but it's not going to be used often except for the long guns - and they will not be unloaded.

ganjoa

yes I worded that poorly, imo carry permits should be allowed for sidearms, but not for semi automatic rifles. We do not need people patrolling the streets like they think they are John Rambo. A person who never compromises is dangerous imo as they think that the only view that matters is thiers. That can be said for both camps on the issue.

reply to post by Underworlds

Originally posted by Underworlds
reply to post by fossilera

 

From where I stand, there's only one thing that I find wrong with what you posted, fossilera... there shouldn't be any backlash from the point that you were making.

The choice not to arm one's self is the right choice to make, if that person thinks for even a moment that he or she will be unable to pull the trigger when needed, or if he or she feels uncertain about keeping the safety of non-target others primary in his or her concern. Not everyone is cut out to use firearms for the defense of others or themselves because when split seconds mean the difference between life or death, making the wrong decision can have consequences that will haunt a person forever.

Even still, the conscious decision to not arm one's self, regardless of the reasons behind that decision, is and should always be a personal choice - not mandated by the wills of others. Choosing not to arm one's self doesn't necessarily make that person (such as yourself) "anti-gun" by definition. I don't know you, but I doubt that you would mind too much if someone such as myself were to use a firearm, if needed, in your defense or in the defense of your wife, children, mother, father or some other person that you love and care for. And if I am correct - if you wouldn't mind that someone such as myself saved you or your loved ones from certain death by defending you or your loved one with my firearm - then you are not "anti-gun". You would then only be someone who prefers not to assume the highest level of responsibility measurable in life-threatening circumstances - that responsibility being the decision to kill or be killed.

I only included a part about the backlash because in the past when I've brought up that point, I was scuffed at because, and I quote "You're not a gun owner, so what do you know?". Or, I've been met with the traditional "Well, that won't happen to me, because...". Figured a disclaimer would help reduce the risk that someone would get offended.

Anyway, you are correct, I'm alright with you (and anyone else) protecting the people I care about if it ever came down to it, provided that the person being protected isn't injured in the process . And you're also correct, in that the decision to arm oneself shouldn't be mandated. I still would insist that something be changed, but not something as drastic as rewriting or amendment a law to say that all guns must be banished.

-Fossilera

Thanks for this OP. i think its worth adding that people also need to realize that there are plenty of gun control advocates who also own guns. It is also the case that those who,want an all out ban are few and far between. Imho, these people don't really belong in the debate.

The current state of the debate is utterly maddening. At this rate, we will still be calling each other nut jobs with zero solutions enacted until another massacre happens.

You know what the saddest part about my last sentence is? That there WILL be another massacre. The likelihood increases with each day that passes and that should give us all pause to think.