Supreme Court Rules Against DC Gun Ban

[KA24DESOneThree]

Well, the projected outcome has come true. The system can indeed work somewhat, and can indeed uphold rights as established in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court managed to make a stand against the Brady Campaign and millions of so-called "liberals" and delivered the citizens a solid, RIGHT decision.

There will be an outcry, there will be crying about the right-wing Supreme Court, but in the end this was a victory for the rights of everyone in the United States.

I would write more but the story is just breaking now.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

[just1pepsi]

Whew, I was sweating this one out, waiting for the decision. It shouldnt have been 5-4 though more like 9-0 but thats a whole different thread. I think there would be civil unrest if they ruled any other way.. there are alot of silent gun owners who feel very strongly about our right to bear arms as individuals.

[98s14inaz]

About fucking time. Those people who live in those high crime areas should be able to defend themselves. I can't wait for the first thief to get shot and the look on his stupid face.

[imotion s14]

A great step forward.

[Z33dori]

yea congrats to the DC ppl for being able to join the nation in owning guns.


pretty fucked up that they are trying to keep the ppl from protecting themselves..

and gun ban def doensn't help stop crime, it makes it easier .

[KA24DESOneThree]

The real question is whether or not those handguns which are not available are allowed to be kept locked and cocked or disassembled/out of reach.

It's really hard to run to and open a safe with an armed intruder in the house.

[GSXRJJordan]

^^^ That's why you have a gun-box right next to your bed. It's easy and legal.
http://www.safetysafeguards.com/members/402168/uploaded/GV1000CDLX_1.jpg

I think it's great, but not because I give a shit about anyone in DC (horrible city unless you're into dick sucking, politics, or both). It's the first time we've put a stop to the wave of liberals trying to make owning guns illegal. Hopefully we've reached an equilibrium.

One of the things I enjoy most is reading the NRA's magazine's articles every month about moms who used to support gun control, but then were saved from a violent crime/rape by a bystander or neighbor with a gun. Hehe, makes me all warm inside.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Not that easy. It's one more motor skill that could be affected by stress. I'd rather bolt a holster to the side of my bed.

My AR just needs to be brought into position and the safety clicked off. It's a bit long for home defense, though, and will be augmented with a Sig.

The five other rifles and pistols hidden around the house require only the same.

This ruling allows for firearms to be stored without lock or disassembly in DC, vastly improving the chances of scaring off and/or defending oneself from intruders.

What this ruling did not do was get my hopes way up, at least not yet. I have 157 pages of dry legalese to wade through before I can find the chinks in the armor and establish some sort of precedent for any legal battles I think are necessary to recreate a state in which my safety is not trod upon by morons who expect the police state to keep them safe.

[OptionZero]

I was actually on the other side of this one, KA24. I was with a group that worked on an amicus brief for DC =P

There was the possibility that the spate of high school shootings might have led to a decision for DC (uphold the ban, no individual right to bear arms, only a collective right), but the facts here made for a poor battleground. The appellant was a cop, not some crazy nutjob.

Odd to see the "gun control" crowd being called "liberals" here. Everything was flipflopped.

All of a sudden you had the NRA crowd, typically "conservative", fighting for individuals rights (well, one specific right), with the "liberal" side fighting for, effectively, more government imposed restrictions. Heck, the NRA and ACLU might as well have teamed up on this one! (they didn't, the ACLU was neutral i think).

I'm not too worked up about this one. The right to arms (not just guns) is not unlimited, just like free speech and all that isn't unlimited. Reasonable regulations are still valid, such as restricting felons and crazy nutjobs.

People do kill people, but guns are a tool used to kill people. They just make that particular task really easy. For everyone and anyone.

KA, you can legally own a gun. There's no need to wade through the legalese, i'll do it for you (as that is my job...lol):
All you have to do is:
Don't commit a felony.
Don't beat your wife.
Fill out the licensing and regulation paperwork.
Keep that paperwork updated and accurate.
Don't let your kids or anyone who's not able to handle it, handle it.

I don't think asking those things of anyone is unreasonable, and I don't have any problem with you having a gun. From what I can tell, you are neither crazy nor irrational.

There are certain Zilvia members I wouldn't want having guns, though. Just look at the stupidity of posts we get. I wouldn't trust some of those folks with a butter knife, except they couldn't do as much damage with a butter knife as a gun...

[90hatchie]

they they had rulled the other way
that would be bad news for me
just bought my ar15 and picked it up yesterday

[just1pepsi]

I need to start collecting more iron myself. the stuff i got is... antique to say the least.. gonna head over to my dads this weekend and see what I've got exactly, maybe run some ammo through it.. that movie *cough* zeitgeist *cough* has really got me thinking...

[KA24DESOneThree]

I was actually on the other side of this one, KA24. I was with a group that worked on an amicus brief for DC =P

There was the possibility that the spate of high school shootings might have led to a decision for DC (uphold the ban, no individual right to bear arms, only a collective right), but the facts here made for a poor battleground. The appellant was a cop, not some crazy nutjob.

Odd to see the "gun control" crowd being called "liberals" here. Everything was flipflopped.

All of a sudden you had the NRA crowd, typically "conservative", fighting for individuals rights (well, one specific right), with the "liberal" side fighting for, effectively, more government imposed restrictions. Heck, the NRA and ACLU might as well have teamed up on this one! (they didn't, the ACLU was neutral i think).

I'm not too worked up about this one. The right to arms (not just guns) is not unlimited, just like free speech and all that isn't unlimited. Reasonable regulations are still valid, such as restricting felons and crazy nutjobs.

People do kill people, but guns are a tool used to kill people. They just make that particular task really easy. For everyone and anyone.

KA, you can legally own a gun. There's no need to wade through the legalese, i'll do it for you (as that is my job...lol):
All you have to do is:
Don't commit a felony.
Don't beat your wife.
Fill out the licensing and regulation paperwork.
Keep that paperwork updated and accurate.
Don't let your kids or anyone who's not able to handle it, handle it.

I don't think asking those things of anyone is unreasonable, and I don't have any problem with you having a gun. From what I can tell, you are neither crazy nor irrational.

There are certain Zilvia members I wouldn't want having guns, though. Just look at the stupidity of posts we get. I wouldn't trust some of those folks with a butter knife, except they couldn't do as much damage with a butter knife as a gun...

Gun control growd, the big-government, hold-my-hand types, are neoliberals. Neoliberals are people who believe the people of the United States cannot be trusted to do anything. Neoliberal equals liberal in the popular connotation. Classical liberals are more libertarian than anything else now, and should be referred to only with a modifier before the noun to avoid confusion with the vermin.

I agree with the felon and nutjob exceptions. Beyond that, I believe arms should be unlimited. We have laws to deal with people who use the arms in a manner inconsistent with considerate ownership. Tactical nuclear warheads should probably be regulated heavily, but beyond that I am on the "lunatic fringe" that believes private citizens should be allowed to own gattling guns and howitzers. The state militia should be comprised of citizens, not soldiers, and those citizens should be able to fully defend the state.

I also believe that a safety and function exam is a good idea, and that it does not infringe on one's right to keep and bear arms. Require it for every purchase if you want, that doesn't bother me.

I have a firearm. I have not pointed it at anyone I don't like, nor have I threatened to use it in a menacing manner. I have not discharged it in an area where it was illegal. I am a law-abiding gun owner.

I cannot make my firearm have a detachable magazine without using a tool to drop the magazine. I cannot have a rifle with a barrel under 16" nor a shotgun with a barrel under 18". I cannot have a select-fire weapon. I cannot have a suppressed weapon. I cannot have a threaded barrel. I cannot have "evil features." I cannot own a rifle chambered in .50 BMG. I cannot buy more than one firearm in a month. I cannot carry a concealed pistol unless I can prove some need, other than the obvious one that without a firearm, I am not resistance, I am a victim. I cannot carry an unconcealed pistol. I cannot carry on campus. These are all serious problems and infringements.

These laws exist to further an agenda. These laws exist to lower gun ownership rates and eventually make law-abiding gun owners disappear. These laws are the tyranny the Second Amendment was created to destroy.

[OptionZero]

Gun control growd, the big-government, hold-my-hand types, are neoliberals. Neoliberals are people who believe the people of the United States cannot be trusted to do anything. Neoliberal equals liberal in the popular connotation. Classical liberals are more libertarian than anything else now, and should be referred to only with a modifier before the noun to avoid confusion with the vermin.

I agree with the felon and nutjob exceptions. Beyond that, I believe arms should be unlimited. We have laws to deal with people who use the arms in a manner inconsistent with considerate ownership. Tactical nuclear warheads should probably be regulated heavily, but beyond that I am on the "lunatic fringe" that believes private citizens should be allowed to own gattling guns and howitzers. The state militia should be comprised of citizens, not soldiers, and those citizens should be able to fully defend the state.

Felon and Nutjob exceptions are present in all states from what I recall of my research (i was literally reading every single case from every jurisdiction, it was mindnumbing).

The other obvious one I'd think of is age, which IIRC federal law already takes care of. I don't believe that an age requirement would be that productive, since gun violence by kids usually is the result of a stolen or otherwise misappropriated gun (parent, household member, friend). Anyways, mootness.

Domestic violence batterers that do not rise to the level of felonies? California might be the leader here: we define "domestic" broadly (wider range of relatives, coinhabitants, sexual partners, etc). This would be harder to pass muster as "reasonable regulation", especially since the gun rights here can be taken away without a criminal conviction (ask for details).

As for private citizens protecting the states...you clearly have more faith in society than I do. There's alot of stupid people out there who aren't felons or officially nuts, but lack the common sense to deserve a gun. The theory might be sound if we weren't overpopulated with idiots.

I also believe that a safety and function exam is a good idea, and that it does not infringe on one's right to keep and bear arms. Require it for every purchase if you want, that doesn't bother me.

It always struck me as odd that we needed to pass a test to drive a car, but didn't to buy a gun. Some jurisdictions require a waiting period and some sort of instruction, but I'd bet its a token flier at best. Something to improve.

I have a firearm. I have not pointed it at anyone I don't like, nor have I threatened to use it in a menacing manner. I have not discharged it in an area where it was illegal. I am a law-abiding gun owner.

Cool. I do not have a gun, but I would like to get the training to operate one. As a future criminal lawyer, it'd serve me well to understand the nuances of a weapon that'll come up in tons of cases. As a citizen, its a skill I hope i don't need to need but will probably be glad I have if i do need it.

I cannot make my firearm have a detachable magazine without using a tool to drop the magazine. I cannot have a rifle with a barrel under 16" nor a shotgun with a barrel under 18". I cannot have a select-fire weapon. I cannot have a suppressed weapon. I cannot have a threaded barrel. I cannot have "evil features." I cannot own a rifle chambered in .50 BMG. I cannot buy more than one firearm in a month. I cannot carry a concealed pistol unless I can prove some need, other than the obvious one that without a firearm, I am not resistance, I am a victim. I cannot carry an unconcealed pistol. I cannot carry on campus. These are all serious problems and infringements.

Even considering that you are a law-abiding gun owner, I have to ask...why do you need a select-fire weapon? Or a huge magazine? Or a 50-caliber?

There are all sorts of products whose availability is limited (and yeah, I know from previous discussions you don't agree with that, either). Again, people are stupid. Really. If i had just met a person and knew nothing about him, i'd assume they're stupid until otherwise proven.

You are not stupid, and perhaps you'd never misuse an assault rifle...but really, I cannot see why any private citizen needs that much firepower.

To hunt? please
Self-defense? Are you really going to be using an automatic weapon in "self-defense"? Who are you defending yourself against, exactly? A pistol would surely suffice against your mugger or home invader; hell, if they were armed with just a knife, you might be able to take 'em out by hand.

I am not a soldier by any stretch, but I'm told by a friend who just finished his time with the marines that full automatic is never even used except in a suppression fire capacity. Given that we live in cities with friendly collateral all over the place and aren't being attacked by waves and waves of enemies, why would you never need full automatic?

I'm also told that a .50 caliber rifle can down a passenger aircraft. Given that destructive capacity, what place does it have in the commercial marketplace?

You say you're not a resistance...but I ask what are you resisting? Off the top of my head, you analyze commercial products for a living, you have time to frequent the track, you also have time and money to own and operate 2 cars, while also working in the automotive business in some way. Sounds like pretty decent living to me.

These laws exist to further an agenda. These laws exist to lower gun ownership rates and eventually make law-abiding gun owners disappear. These laws are the tyranny the Second Amendment was created to destroy.

I am hesitant to ascribe "agendas" to any mysterious governmental forces. Who's conducting this agenda? Why? I don't see any tyranny here. As I mentioned above, I don't think you're being oppressed; there are certainly other people in the world considerably more oppressed than you or I. I don't have any problem I think a gun would fix.

Considering that guns are relatively durable and don't exactly evaporate overnight, I believe that figures I last saw show that there are enough guns to keep America "armed" for decades and decades. In other words, stop making guns this very second and there are already enough guns out there for everyone. (Ammo is a different story, since it can actually go bad).

So "lower gun-ownership"...that would take more than a gun ban, it'd be going out and finding all the random weaponry scattered around, which apparently is quite plentiful.

Now, although I worked for and mostly support gun control, I'm not oblivious to other factors that lead to the disasters we see on TV. Insufficient education, poor parenting, socioeconomic imbalance, blah blah blah.

I just don't see why we can't address the problem from both ends: reduce the availability of tools that are the most effective at killing people while reducing the tendency of people to use them for the wrong reasons.

If I have a leaky roof, I can put a bucket under the leak while also climbing a ladder to patch it.

[BustedS13]

do you guys live in the hood or something? i leave my doors unlocked at night. i don't own a gun. and i'm somehow magically alive and have all my possessions.


that's not to say that i'm for gun control. you have the right to own as many as you want. i'd like a handgun at some point for target shooting.

but why do you guys have houses chock full of guns in hidey holes?

[ThatGuy]

OptionZero, just allow me to make this small point.

Why do Supra owners need 1200+WHP?
Why do trucks need 38+" inch tires?
Why do muscle cars need to be able to do wheel stands and scrape their back bumper?
Why do 240s need more than stock steering angle?

None of it is required for practical daily use, but enthusiasts enjoy having more.

Now, I actually share your thoughts somewhat. I see no reason for civilians to own Full Automatic weapons, armor piercing rounds, or .50cal cannons. There really isn't a need, but I can understand the draw of enthusiasts.

[mrmephistopheles]

Gun control growd, the big-government, hold-my-hand types, are neoliberals. Neoliberals are people who believe the people of the United States cannot be trusted to do anything. Neoliberal equals liberal in the popular connotation. Classical liberals are more libertarian than anything else now, and should be referred to only with a modifier before the noun to avoid confusion with the vermin.

I agree with the felon and nutjob exceptions. Beyond that, I believe arms should be unlimited. We have laws to deal with people who use the arms in a manner inconsistent with considerate ownership. Tactical nuclear warheads should probably be regulated heavily, but beyond that I am on the "lunatic fringe" that believes private citizens should be allowed to own gattling guns and howitzers. The state militia should be comprised of citizens, not soldiers, and those citizens should be able to fully defend the state.

I also believe that a safety and function exam is a good idea, and that it does not infringe on one's right to keep and bear arms. Require it for every purchase if you want, that doesn't bother me.

I have a firearm. I have not pointed it at anyone I don't like, nor have I threatened to use it in a menacing manner. I have not discharged it in an area where it was illegal. I am a law-abiding gun owner.

I cannot make my firearm have a detachable magazine without using a tool to drop the magazine. I cannot have a rifle with a barrel under 16" nor a shotgun with a barrel under 18". I cannot have a select-fire weapon. I cannot have a suppressed weapon. I cannot have a threaded barrel. I cannot have "evil features." I cannot own a rifle chambered in .50 BMG. I cannot buy more than one firearm in a month. I cannot carry a concealed pistol unless I can prove some need, other than the obvious one that without a firearm, I am not resistance, I am a victim. I cannot carry an unconcealed pistol. I cannot carry on campus. These are all serious problems and infringements.

These laws exist to further an agenda. These laws exist to lower gun ownership rates and eventually make law-abiding gun owners disappear. These laws are the tyranny the Second Amendment was created to destroy.

Well said.


As for private citizens protecting the states...you clearly have more faith in society than I do. There's alot of stupid people out there who aren't felons or officially nuts, but lack the common sense to deserve a gun.

Even considering that you are a law-abiding gun owner, I have to ask...why do you need a select-fire weapon? Or a huge magazine? Or a 50-caliber?

You are not stupid, and perhaps you'd never misuse an assault rifle...but really, I cannot see why any private citizen needs that much firepower.
I'm also told that a .50 caliber rifle can down a passenger aircraft. Given that destructive capacity, what place does it have in the commercial marketplace?

So "lower gun-ownership"...that would take more than a gun ban, it'd be going out and finding all the random weaponry scattered around, which apparently is quite plentiful.

I just don't see why we can't address the problem from both ends: reduce the availability of tools that are the most effective at killing people while reducing the tendency of people to use them for the wrong reasons.



While I agree with most of your points (or just don't feel like commenting on them), I'd like to share my opinion on a few of your statements.

Providing for private citizens to act as militia in a time of need is important, and simply because not all persons would be qualified to act in such a capacity doesn't mean legislation to remove that right is necessary. I realize that we're speaking of either a Red Dawn scenario, or an overthrow of the current government, but remember - that's a major reason the Second Amendment is there - so that if the current government oppresses it's people, the people have a way to free themselves from oppression.

For me, the idea behind having high caliber or high capacity or otherwise non-sporting or self-defense weaponry is simply that - to have it. Does anybody NEED a 3000hp nitromethane dragster? Obviously you couldn't commute to work with it, and it'd make a horrible grocery getter. The only place to USE it is on a dragstrip. Same idea with those weapons. Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would consider defending themselves with a BMG .50 or a minigun. The only place to use those weapons is a specialized shooting range. Does it make them bad to have? Is that really reason to prevent someone from owning them? As far as I'm concerned, legislate safety requirements and testing and background checks and yearly psych evaluations (run-on sentence intended), but don't legislate the ability to own a particular type of weapon from people simply because of the weapon.

The idea behind these restrictive laws lowering gun ownership is kinda of fuzzy - yes they prevent you from owning certain types, and DC and Chicago had their handgun bans. Nothing prevented people from getting a 12 gauge shotgun for home defense, and I'm sure many thousands did so. Nonetheless, preventing people from owning a certain type of gun is as effective at stopping crime as wishing it away. The 'murder by handgun' rates for D.C. have remained almost unchanged in the 33 years that law has been in effect. In other words, that law has done nearly nothing to change the rate at which people use handguns to kill other people. It's completely obvious to anyone who isn't a politician that black market guns are readily available, and that to anyone who wants to get around a waiting period or gain access to weaponry that might be forbidden by their state or municipality, all they have to do is look in the right places.

Your last statement, I actually agree with - reducing availability (NOT OUTLAWING) and reducing inappropriate behavior. I'm willing to jump through whatever hoops necessary to be able to own the guns I want. I feel it unfair that I'm not permitted to own certain types of weapons when I've done nothing wrong. I think gun safety should be taught in school from elementary classes on up. I also think that marksmanship should be taught to high school students, and that gun ownership should be mandated for heads of household (so long as they meet requirements of gun ownership). People think that more guns will equal more killing, when in reality the reverse effect is apparent.
Take a look at this story really quick and you'll see what I'm getting at -
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html

Switzerland is also a good example, but I'll let you do the footwork on that one.

[ESmorz]

but why do you guys have houses chock full of guns in hidey holes?

http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/d/dd/Mr_and_Mrs_Smith_29-1-.jpg/500px-Mr_and_Mrs_Smith_29-1-.jpg
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Restrictions are key. If you deserve to have one, and are willing to go through all the necessary criteria, you can have whatever you want. You're obviously not getting it to go shoot the neighbors dog or something.

[OptionZero]

And my counterpoint:

Does a Supra w/ 1200whp, a truck w/ 38+ inch tires, a muscle car capable of wheel stands, or a 240 w/ stock steering angle offer the combination of low cost, killing ability, easy of use, and portability of a gun?

What's your typical 9mm run these days, a couple hundred bucks? It fits in a jacket pocket, you point and shoot, it's done.

You might be able to get a 240 for less than that (well, not after initial D), but it would probably break down. And it doesn't fit in belt.


If you want to go to a gun range and fire off a sniper rifle for the fun of it, that's cool. But really, what are you gonna do with a .50cal stored in the basement?

Not all non-essential items are created equal.

I do not attribute any evilness or magic properties on a gun, I simply recognize it for what it is.

A gun is a tool.
Its use is to inflict damage, likely lethal damage.
It is very, very efficient at its intended use.

That is all the reasoning I have for treating differently from a fun car.

And hey, let's face it. People are lazy. If the Columbine kids didn't have guns, but instead wanted to use some really, really quality knives...

...wouldn't it have been less of a disaster? They'd be just as crazy and fucked up, except they wouldn't have had handy dandy tools to turn that insanity into death.

And they'd probably have gotten their asses kicked eventually.

[Matej]

So I picked up this sweet new hammer. Anyone want to go to the hammer range tomorrow?
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/hammer-1.jpg

[OptionZero]

Well said.



While I agree with most of your points (or just don't feel like commenting on them), I'd like to share my opinion on a few of your statements.

Providing for private citizens to act as militia in a time of need is important, and simply because not all persons would be qualified to act in such a capacity doesn't mean legislation to remove that right is necessary. I realize that we're speaking of either a Red Dawn scenario, or an overthrow of the current government, but remember - that's a major reason the Second Amendment is there - so that if the current government oppresses it's people, the people have a way to free themselves from oppression.

Uh oh, you've trigged the political science major in me:duh:

When the Second Amendment was enacted, it was a time of revolution. Big bad britain was "oppressing" the United States (that's a whole different story...), and Articles of Conferation had already led to one failure of a national government in America.

At the time, the sentiment that you needed guns in case of an armed rebellion was understandable and much more fitting.

Now, however, I scoff at the notion:

1. If there were a need for a rebellion and people had "guns", would that make the least difference? Could the scattered populace of lazy, overweight, largely ignorant citizens possibly "beat" the government? It's not like we'd be fighting against some other musket-wielding redcoats.

Sure, put .50 caliber and automatic weapons on the market. Even with some pockets of the population that can and would use them right...they're going to defeat the United States government? You were in the military, right? Assuming the citizenry could even get remotely organized to "fight", they'd presumably still get their ass kicked.

Even I know that war isn't about guns. War is logistics, intelligence, and discipline. Guns provide none of that.

2. The government isn't using guns to oppress us right now. It's society itself: apathy, consumerism, greed, etc. There is no incentive to participate in government and make improve it.

Is giving guns to people going to fix any problem in society today? Will giving guns to our kids bring them to the same level of education as the rest of the world? Will it make them literate?

Will guns end rascism, sexism, or any other form of bias?

I do not see how being "armed" equates being better off in any way.

Now, a Red Dawn situation...my international politics isn't all that great these days. Who's going to invade us? the USSR's defunct. The middle eastern countries have no need to invade us since they own most of the property here already they'd just be damaging their own collateral.

Who's left? North Korea? China? I'm cool with China, I think my parents got their citizen's ID for Hong Kong before the return or something, i should be good off that.

If it came to the point where regular, non-military people needed to go to their closets and haul out their shotguns and weapons...wouldn't that mean all of our F-22's have been shot down, our aircraft carriers sunk, our nuclear weapons stolen or rendered inoperaable, our army defeated, and marines scattered? In other words, wouldn't we be already fucked?

My military history is not good, but when was the last time a foreign power landed a ground force on 48-state, American soil and we had to fight them straight up? IIRC the biggest conflicts on American soil were...civil war battles, when we were just fighting each other.

For me, the idea behind having high caliber or high capacity or otherwise non-sporting or self-defense weaponry is simply that - to have it. Does anybody NEED a 3000hp nitromethane dragster? Obviously you couldn't commute to work with it, and it'd make a horrible grocery getter. The only place to USE it is on a dragstrip. Same idea with those weapons. Nobody with an ounce of intelligence would consider defending themselves with a BMG .50 or a minigun. The only place to use those weapons is a specialized shooting range. Does it make them bad to have? Is that really reason to prevent someone from owning them? As far as I'm concerned, legislate safety requirements and testing and background checks and yearly psych evaluations (run-on sentence intended), but don't legislate the ability to own a particular type of weapon from people simply because of the weapon.


See above post

The idea behind these restrictive laws lowering gun ownership is kinda of fuzzy - yes they prevent you from owning certain types, and DC and Chicago had their handgun bans. Nothing prevented people from getting a 12 gauge shotgun for home defense, and I'm sure many thousands did so. Nonetheless, preventing people from owning a certain type of gun is as effective at stopping crime as wishing it away. The 'murder by handgun' rates for D.C. have remained almost unchanged in the 33 years that law has been in effect. In other words, that law has done nearly nothing to change the rate at which people use handguns to kill other people. It's completely obvious to anyone who isn't a politician that black market guns are readily available, and that to anyone who wants to get around a waiting period or gain access to weaponry that might be forbidden by their state or municipality, all they have to do is look in the right places.

That guns are often procured illegally does not mean we cannot improve the rules controlling legal sales.

One of the most common loop holes is the gun show sale. It's ridiculously easy to bypass the background check/waiting period requirement in a circus atmosphere...basically a giant tent with various gun stores setting up shop..and MAYBE a cop or two there to chill.

Literally anyone can walk up, scope out the scene, find a vendor who wants the buck, and walk out armed. Or you send your buddy without a rap sheet to go snag a few weapons for you.

Better regulation AND better enforcement are needed in that and other areas.

Your last statement, I actually agree with - reducing availability (NOT OUTLAWING) and reducing inappropriate behavior. I'm willing to jump through whatever hoops necessary to be able to own the guns I want. I feel it unfair that I'm not permitted to own certain types of weapons when I've done nothing wrong. I think gun safety should be taught in school from elementary classes on up. I also think that marksmanship should be taught to high school students, and that gun ownership should be mandated for heads of household (so long as they meet requirements of gun ownership). People think that more guns will equal more killing, when in reality the reverse effect is apparent.
Take a look at this story really quick and you'll see what I'm getting at -
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16reynolds.html

Switzerland is also a good example, but I'll let you do the footwork on that one.

This will lead to other tangents, but for me, comparisons with other countries do not work at all.

No other country has the level of diversity in their population that we do. As a result, they are not subject to the same social pressures we face.

To put it plainly and possibly open up a whole can of worms...

Any violence statistics based on a society of, say, an all or mostly all white citizens cannot be compared with a society of mixed ethnicities.

Throw in population density and a buncha other variables and I find it very difficult to draw any useful comparisons between the United States and other countries.

Now, will more guns deter crime? I dunno. None of the studies I've seen are convincing (either conflicting or based on a small sample size or testimony from a couple criminals).

I propose an experiment. Give everyone bats. Check the crime rate in a couple years. If it works, we'll move up to swords. If it all works out, we can move on to guns. I'd be behind that.

I will digress into a random case I got to observe:

Man wakes up, finds 6 men in his room stealing his laptop, PS3, Xbox 360, etc.

He grabs a bat that happens to lie near his bed.

5 of 6 robbers run.

Man swings bat at the one robber who, stands his ground.

Man misses.

Robber grabs the bat.

There's a struggle for the bat.

Robber wins.

If I stopped the story here, you might think, damn he's fucked. That might be an argument against arming residents...it also might arm the burglars.

however, the story does not end there.

See, the robber wins the struggle and secures the bat. He stands and turns toward the "victim."

Except

The man had rolled around the struggle and ended up on the other side of the room...

...the side of the room where he kept his katana.

Yeah, his katana.

So the robber looks at the victim. He's holding a bat.
The victim gets up. He's holding a sword.

The two stand there for a few seconds. Nothing happens.


...and then the robber runs away.

Man chases, calls 911, cops catch the dude. Not sure if they got the other 5, they might have been in a different courtroom.

Anyways, the moral of the story?
Buy more katanas.

[OptionZero]

So I picked up this sweet new hammer. Anyone want to go to the hammer range tomorrow?
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/hammer-1.jpg

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/marveldatabase/images/thumb/b/b9/Mjolnir.jpg/250px-Mjolnir.jpg

[ESmorz]

So the robber looks at the victim. He's holding a bat.
The victim gets up. He's holding a sword.

The two stand there for a few seconds. Nothing happens.


...and then the robber runs away.


Having trained with Katanas for 3 or 4 years. I'd take my chances with the bat. I could probably break the Katana with the bat.

[Jung918]

The Police: No Duty To Protect Individuals

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0503.htm

One of the many reasons why I am a gun owner.

[Matej]

Someone show me the number of victims who died because their shooter had easy access to a gun vs. the number of people whose guns saved their lives.

[OptionZero]

You can't sue the police after the fact for negligence. That's all it says.

I don't see how that equals "get a gun".

Are all police the same?

[WERDdabuilder]

isnt it true that crime rate is pretty low on states that doesn't have this law banned?

people will think twice before trying to rob someone etc.

i need to get a gat fresh from a trunk. click-clack!!!!

[Tenchuu]

And my counterpoint:

Does a Supra w/ 1200whp, a truck w/ 38+ inch tires, a muscle car capable of wheel stands, or a 240 w/ stock steering angle offer the combination of low cost, killing ability, easy of use, and portability of a gun?

What's your typical 9mm run these days, a couple hundred bucks? It fits in a jacket pocket, you point and shoot, it's done.

You might be able to get a 240 for less than that (well, not after initial D), but it would probably break down. And it doesn't fit in belt.


If you want to go to a gun range and fire off a sniper rifle for the fun of it, that's cool. But really, what are you gonna do with a .50cal stored in the basement?

Not all non-essential items are created equal.

I do not attribute any evilness or magic properties on a gun, I simply recognize it for what it is.

A gun is a tool.
Its use is to inflict damage, likely lethal damage.
It is very, very efficient at its intended use.

That is all the reasoning I have for treating differently from a fun car.

And hey, let's face it. People are lazy. If the Columbine kids didn't have guns, but instead wanted to use some really, really quality knives...

...wouldn't it have been less of a disaster? They'd be just as crazy and fucked up, except they wouldn't have had handy dandy tools to turn that insanity into death.

And they'd probably have gotten their asses kicked eventually.
I can kill FAR FAR FAR more people with a car ( think something along the lines of cruising down the sidewalk of NY during a busy time, you might even kill a thousand people before being stopped) where as a gun (even a gatteling gun) will be stationary and kill only maybe a hundred tops.

and FYI a wrist mounted high quality sling shot is just as portable and can kill people just as easy with ball bearing as a handgun can, it just takes .5 seconds longer to use. if people want to go crazy and kill other people weather guns are there or not, they will do it.

[ESmorz]

I can kill FAR FAR FAR more people with a car ( think something along the lines of cruising down the sidewalk of NY during a busy time, you might even kill a thousand people before being stopped)


A car will be riddled useless after a few bodies. See deer accidents for some reference.

[Tenchuu]

don't think a porche or even a plastic bumper 240. think a crown vic or any 80's vehicle. and most deer hits end up at 55-70. now add a steel bumper at 15-20, or a brush guard, or an old truck. any police cruiser would work wonders for this. and you can pick up those old cars for a couple hundred. re- enforce the bumper (or the whole thing like demolition derby) throw on run flats and you are on a rampage until you are shot out of it or run out of fuel.

[ESmorz]

an old truck.


http://eastsideautomotive.net/Deer_Hit_Truck.jpg

After one deer.

This isn't gta.

[ellisonrox]

Homer: "But I have to have a gun! It's in the Constitution!"
Lisa: Dad! The Second Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today!
Homer: You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the King of England could just walk in here any time he wants, and start shoving you around. [pushing Lisa] Do you want that? [pushing her harder] Huh? Do you?
Lisa: [quietly indignant] No...


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/bf/The_Simpsons_5F01.png/200px-The_Simpsons_5F01.png

[Tenchuu]

http://eastsideautomotive.net/Deer_Hit_Truck.jpg

After one deer.

This isn't gta.

speed?

were you going 10-15MPH? see how the bumper held up and the PLASTIC grill broke away, and the thin metal hoot taking most of the hit just bent back?

I worked in a body shop for 8 years man, seen plenty of accidents. hitting anything going 55-70 will wreck out a vehicle good. I have seen a turkey hit a car at highway speeds that totaled it. i have been in a truck that hit a buzzard going 15ish and it deflected it without a dent.

doubt me all you want, cause i don't plan on doing this rampage any time soon, and most criminals are too stupid to think up something this.

warning people being hit by cars, but nothing graphic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYlwDbBOSoM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t4wWGH51-A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX_ScMcrV8M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNGB8v2rF9k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNGB8v2rF9k&feature=related

[Tenchuu]

all and all i think some people will never be convinced that owning guns is good. and some people will never be convinced that any instutions should be able to take them away.

[OptionZero]

I can kill FAR FAR FAR more people with a car ( think something along the lines of cruising down the sidewalk of NY during a busy time, you might even kill a thousand people before being stopped) where as a gun (even a gatteling gun) will be stationary and kill only maybe a hundred tops.

and FYI a wrist mounted high quality sling shot is just as portable and can kill people just as easy with ball bearing as a handgun can, it just takes .5 seconds longer to use. if people want to go crazy and kill other people weather guns are there or not, they will do it.

A car is designed for legitimate purposes (transportation) besides killing people.
A gun is designed primarily as a weapon, and it is an effective one.

Yes, you cannot put a gatling gun in your pocket...but what's your point? There are many guns that are concealable.

My point is that gun is not the same as a car. Can we agree on that? If you're going to lump a car and a gun together, well, then I have nothing to discuss with you.

I also don't understand why you mention a high quality slingshot. The gun man bans guns, but there are also laws against projectile weapons of all types. We were talking specifically about "guns", but lethal slingshots are regulated as well....and more over, the fact that a slingshot works just as well as a gun does not make anything anyone has said above about guns any less true.

Water is wet, but so is orange juice. One does not preclude the other.

[mrmephistopheles]

Anyways, the moral of the story?
Buy more katanas.

What happens when katana-related murders increase, or some psycho uses one in a mall, kill 15 people, and then they ban katanas?

Anyway, this is all conjecture and opinion. For me, I like the idea of being armed. If I could walk around all day long with a sidearm on my hip I'd be a happy camper. Americans are far too gunshy (pun intended) when it comes to gun ownership, use and carriage. Guns are not inherently evil things. Yes, they have the specific purpose of firing a ballistic projectile accurately at an intensely high rate of speed for the purpose of target shooting, hunting, or people shooting (self defense, ideally).


Yes, you cannot put a gatling gun in your pocket...but what's your point? There are many guns that are concealable.

My point is that gun is not the same as a car. Can we agree on that? If you're going to lump a car and a gun together, well, then I have nothing to discuss with you.


My argument is essentially that of a CA resident gun enthusiast - I can't get the guns I want because the state I live in deems them evil, and a threat to the public good. I disagree with that notion and feel that a gun is a gun is a gun, no matter how small or how many rounds of ammunition it's magazine can carry. The idea of banning certain types of guns is as irritating as the idea of banning ALL guns.

Anyone with a notion to kill will get it done, regardless of the tools at their disposal.

I agree that a gun is not a car, but the idea that it can be used as a weapon is understandable. Sure, real life isn't Grand Theft Auto, but I dare you to put a crazy person behind the wheel of a semi truck or a tank, and see if they don't kill quite a few people before they're stopped. Anything can be used as a weapon. Look at the Sarin gas attacks by Om Shinrykyu (spelling is probably fucked up) in Japan - Look at the 1983 Beirut bombing of the USMC Barracks. I realize that we're talking specifically of gun violence, but my point is that if a person or people are determined to kill, it'll happen, regardless of the tools at their disposal.

[yudalicious]

my point is that if a person or people are determined to kill, it'll happen, regardless of the tools at their disposal.
Though I agree with some of what you said earlier, I don't buy that argument. By the same reasoning, there's no need to regulate sarin or any other type of weapon? Or drugs or alcohol since kids will get them if they really want to. What you say is probably true if all violent deaths are results of methodical and planned acts. I don't know the statistics, but I'm guessing a sizeable amount of these violent deaths is a result of heat of the moment small thing escalated into something worse type of thing?

[Jung918]

You can't sue the police after the fact for negligence. That's all it says.

I don't see how that equals "get a gun".

Are all police the same?

the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

That means that the only one looking out for numero uno is this guy and you can bet that I wont be bringing a knife to a gun fight.

What are you talking about asking if all police are the same? Did you even bother to read the article? I am not blaming the police for their actions.

[OptionZero]

In the lawsuit at issue, the plaintiffs are blaming the police.

"duty" here is a legal term of art that triggers liability to the person to whom the duty is owed.

While I don't agree with the reasoning of the court, there's certainly a valid concern about individuals being able to sue the police for negligence.

[OptionZero]

What happens when katana-related murders increase, or some psycho uses one in a mall, kill 15 people, and then they ban katanas?

Anyway, this is all conjecture and opinion. For me, I like the idea of being armed. If I could walk around all day long with a sidearm on my hip I'd be a happy camper. Americans are far too gunshy (pun intended) when it comes to gun ownership, use and carriage. Guns are not inherently evil things. Yes, they have the specific purpose of firing a ballistic projectile accurately at an intensely high rate of speed for the purpose of target shooting, hunting, or people shooting (self defense, ideally).



My argument is essentially that of a CA resident gun enthusiast - I can't get the guns I want because the state I live in deems them evil, and a threat to the public good. I disagree with that notion and feel that a gun is a gun is a gun, no matter how small or how many rounds of ammunition it's magazine can carry. The idea of banning certain types of guns is as irritating as the idea of banning ALL guns.

Anyone with a notion to kill will get it done, regardless of the tools at their disposal.

I agree that a gun is not a car, but the idea that it can be used as a weapon is understandable. Sure, real life isn't Grand Theft Auto, but I dare you to put a crazy person behind the wheel of a semi truck or a tank, and see if they don't kill quite a few people before they're stopped. Anything can be used as a weapon. Look at the Sarin gas attacks by Om Shinrykyu (spelling is probably fucked up) in Japan - Look at the 1983 Beirut bombing of the USMC Barracks. I realize that we're talking specifically of gun violence, but my point is that if a person or people are determined to kill, it'll happen, regardless of the tools at their disposal.

As I said above, I don't believe guns are evil- just remarkable effective for their intended usage (shooting people).

I never said bad people won't be bad regardless of the tools at their disposal, but if reducing the tools at their disposal will reduce the negative effect of bad people...then do it.

[KA24DESOneThree]

First, let me state that this thread has become very interesting. Valid points are being presented and the arguments have not digressed the way they usually do.

I have edited some of your quote for the sake of brevity, OZ. Every attempt has been made to keep the contexts clear to avoid confusion.

My opinion has been interjected in bold.

The other obvious one I'd think of is age, which IIRC federal law already takes care of. I don't believe that an age requirement would be that productive, since gun violence by kids usually is the result of a stolen or otherwise misappropriated gun (parent, household member, friend). Anyways, mootness.

I agree with an age limit, with that limit being 18 regardless of handguns, shotguns, or rifles. If one can vote or choose to serve one's country, one should be entrusted with access to firearms.

Domestic violence batterers that do not rise to the level of felonies? California might be the leader here: we define "domestic" broadly (wider range of relatives, coinhabitants, sexual partners, etc). This would be harder to pass muster as "reasonable regulation", especially since the gun rights here can be taken away without a criminal conviction (ask for details).

Maybe. Rescinding rights sans conviction of a crime is a bit Orwellian.

As for private citizens protecting the states...you clearly have more faith in society than I do. There's alot of stupid people out there who aren't felons or officially nuts, but lack the common sense to deserve a gun. The theory might be sound if we weren't overpopulated with idiots.

I have no faith in society, hence my predilection toward firearms. I have a slight amount of faith in the justice system, and would rather they, or any law-abiding citizen, keep the idiots and miscreants in check. If you give a moron a gun, and give me a gun, and I see said moron being a moron with said gun, said moron will have his rights rescinded.

It always struck me as odd that we needed to pass a test to drive a car, but didn't to buy a gun. Some jurisdictions require a waiting period and some sort of instruction, but I'd bet its a token flier at best. Something to improve.

You must pass a test to buy a gun, at least here in Kalifornia. You must pass a handgun use test as well as perform a function test in the presence of the seller. I agree that the testing is not stringent enough, as we still have far too many accidents. Perhaps we could have a safety program in our schools?


Cool. I do not have a gun, but I would like to get the training to operate one. As a future criminal lawyer, it'd serve me well to understand the nuances of a weapon that'll come up in tons of cases. As a citizen, its a skill I hope i don't need to need but will probably be glad I have if i do need it.

Most guns require very little training to use. To repair, modify, or go farther than cocking and reloading, one does need more training. I can disassemble my AR in my sleep.

Even considering that you are a law-abiding gun owner, I have to ask...why do you need a select-fire weapon? Or a huge magazine? Or a 50-caliber?

Because. As a member of the militia, I may be called upon to fight an army. That, and full auto and big calibers are FUN. Guns can be tools to spend an afternoon shooting paper targets or Coke cans. Just because some people use them to murder doesn't mean that the others use them for harmless recreation.

You are not stupid, and perhaps you'd never misuse an assault rifle...but really, I cannot see why any private citizen needs that much firepower.

To hunt? please
Self-defense? Are you really going to be using an automatic weapon in "self-defense"? Who are you defending yourself against, exactly? A pistol would surely suffice against your mugger or home invader; hell, if they were armed with just a knife, you might be able to take 'em out by hand.

You do not bring your hands to a knife fight. You do not bring a knife to a knife fight. This romantic notion of being able to defeat someone without the use of deadly force is stupid and gets people killed. If someone brings a knife to a fight with me, I can assure you that I will have several thousand joules waiting to put them down.

You don't fight with an adequate weapon. You fight with a weapon that will overpower your adversary. Your adequate weapon may leave you dying of a smashed skull or slashed artery.

Firearms are deterrents as well. If a burglar's in your house and you pump a 12-gauge, he's gonna either a. give up or b. get the hell out of there right quick. He may c. try to confront you but then you'd d. put one round of Federal Tactical 00 buckshot into his chest. Most of the time, burglars will not even attempt to put up a fight if you're a prickly target.

Do you know who will be invading your house? If it's three guys, two with Tec 9s and one with a 9mm semi-auto pistol, I'd like to have a Glock 18C at my disposal.

For the record, I do not hunt. I can buy my meat at the grocery store, and I certainly do not need any trophies for my walls.

I am not a soldier by any stretch, but I'm told by a friend who just finished his time with the marines that full automatic is never even used except in a suppression fire capacity. Given that we live in cities with friendly collateral all over the place and aren't being attacked by waves and waves of enemies, why would you ever need full automatic?

For target shooting and Constitutional protection.

I'm also told that a .50 caliber rifle can down a passenger aircraft. Given that destructive capacity, what place does it have in the commercial marketplace?

I dare you to find someone who can put a round of .50BMG from a commercially available semi-auto or single-shot rifle into a target moving in excess of 100mph. This is a fallacious and incredibly inept argument brought up by Barbara Boxer and perpetuated by people with no understanding of ballistics. Considering that the stall speed of a Cessna 172 flying dirty is somewhere around 47mph, the plane has no choice but to fly faster than 69 feet per second. Its length is 27 feet. Do the math and tell me if you think that's a feasible shot.

You say you're not a resistance...but I ask what are you resisting? Off the top of my head, you analyze commercial products for a living, you have time to frequent the track, you also have time and money to own and operate 2 cars, while also working in the automotive business in some way. Sounds like pretty decent living to me.

I am resisting my death, being robbed of my possessions, etc. Even $20 is sacred to me because I am living on a tight budget now. I wish I had time to frequent the track or operate both of my cars at the same time, but I don't anymore. It's a pretty decent living in that I'm happy, but I'm certainly not Mr. Moneybags like I was a couple years ago.


I am hesitant to ascribe "agendas" to any mysterious governmental forces. Who's conducting this agenda? Why? I don't see any tyranny here. As I mentioned above, I don't think you're being oppressed; there are certainly other people in the world considerably more oppressed than you or I. I don't have any problem I think a gun would fix.

Not many people see the tyranny of being forced to live on the grid. We're forced to pay into Social Security and Medicare and welfare. We're forced to pay taxes on cigarettes because our government wants us to live as long as possible so we can pay taxes as long as possible. All the little tyrannies you overlook in day to day live add up.

A gun doesn't fix these problems. A gun is simply a way of making your voice heard. A gun says "Listen. I don't need your police state or nanny system. I am self-reliant. I will defend my country and I will defend my freedom."

Considering that guns are relatively durable and don't exactly evaporate overnight, I believe that figures I last saw show that there are enough guns to keep America "armed" for decades and decades. In other words, stop making guns this very second and there are already enough guns out there for everyone. (Ammo is a different story, since it can actually go bad).

Guns wear out. Frames crack, barrel tolerances get larger, springs fatigue, and many other things can happen. Besides, we'd have a finite number of guns and the price would be insane. The collection I want to one day have will be damn near impossible to obtain.

So "lower gun-ownership"...that would take more than a gun ban, it'd be going out and finding all the random weaponry scattered around, which apparently is quite plentiful.

It's not. You're assuming that everyone needs just one gun. I like to have a rifle, a shotgun, and at least one pistol.

Now, although I worked for and mostly support gun control, I'm not oblivious to other factors that lead to the disasters we see on TV. Insufficient education, poor parenting, socioeconomic imbalance, blah blah blah.

I just don't see why we can't address the problem from both ends: reduce the availability of tools that are the most effective at killing people while reducing the tendency of people to use them for the wrong reasons.

If I have a leaky roof, I can put a bucket under the leak while also climbing a ladder to patch it.

The bucket is a temporary fix. The patch is permanent. Start addressing social issues and gun violence will plummet.

The people are the police and the police are the people. This was the idea we founded our police force upon and now what do we have? Police disarming people after natural disasters. Police breaking windows and doors and illegally searching houses in the name of "public safety." Police disarming private citizens carrying illegally because the citizens fear for their safety.

WE ARE THE POLICE. If we cannot police ourselves, we deserve all the violence we can get. Until we have policed ourselves properly, guns will be a necessity.

[OptionZero]

Before getting into any specific points, I must address your overall tone. At every step, the basis for your argument is that the government is ineffective or outright corrupt. Though you haven't said so outright, the "solution" you're getting at is, essentially, no government.

If such is the case, then, well, what can I say? We're never going to have no government, and really, if you believe there comes a day when your gun will protect you from the constitution being ripped to shred, then I have nothing. I do not see the situation to be as dire as you imply, and were the situation as you imply, I do not agree with the solution you propose.

1. Domestic Violence Firearms Removal
Digging back in my memory a bit, I believe any guns seized are held for 5 days; this is when the police remove a weapon from the scene of a reported incident before charges are brought and proved. Later in the proceedings, after notice and a hearing, the firearm can be removed longer or permanently, but by then both sides have had their day in court.

Just some clarification on that matter.

2. Your are a member of the miltia and may be called upon to fight
That may well be true, but does that mean your weapon is privately owned and stored? Do soldiers keep their weapons under their beds, or in an armory? Do police carry their shotguns on their backs, or in the trunk?

Even conceeding "you" are the militia, wouldn't the weapons you'd use in any fight against "invading" forces (not police purposes or home-defense) be put in a cache or base?

3. Guns for hunting
You don't bring a gun to a knife fight, but hunting isn't a knife fight. In a knife fight, you're being attacked unwillingly (i assume you didn't start it) and you need to save your life.

If you pack your bags into a truck, go out into the wild, and go after an animal, you'd have to concede that an automatic weapon or heavy weapon is unsporting.

It is true that you may not be committing crimes with a weapon, but others do, and as the situation stands, you are not living alone, nor even with a few other likeminded people.

We are living in a large, dense, pluralistic society with many pressures pushing and pulling in many directions. Your wants and needs will collide with those of others. It is fundamental that we all make sacrifices to live in this particular civilized society.


You say that guns are fun. Nothing wrong with that. But if the purpose is fun, the argument for reducing restrictions is even weaker. Driving 100mph is fun, but I don't believe regulating against it is unreasonable.

Sticking to self-defense or militia grounds is more convincing.

4. What if my home is invaded by gun-toting villains?

If three men enter your home armed, and you pull out your glock, the result is a 3 on 1 gun fight.

How does that end?

You shouldn't get your stuff taken, but a gun in every household in an urban environment does not seem like the best solution. My opinion may differ in a less densely populated area.

5. The Tyranny of the grid

You want a gun because you don't want to pay social security, welfare, or medicaid? How does a gun solve any of those alleged problems? Are you going to shoot the IRS?

Those are political issues that are addressed in a political forum. If you intend on emptying your holster to change people's minds on political issues, then this debate is going no where. Are you going to shoot me because I vote on the opposite side of your views?

6. You are the Police, you don't need them"?

Because the police isn't acting the way you believe they should act, you're going to get a gun and shoot everyone you want shot that they don't shoot (sorry if that needs a second reading)?

I can understand if you don't have faith in the police. I cannot argue that all police are good, and I have no idea what the police are like in your area...but I do not agree that the solution, again, is superior firepower.

I have a suggestion:

If the police aren't up to spec, gather up some of your community and make some noise.

or

Quit your job. Enter the police academy. Join the army. Enter public service.

You want to defend your property and community because the police suck? Become police, be a good cop.

You think our country isn't being protected? Join the military, fight hard to defend us.

If you want to police "us" properly, go out and do it. I would applaud you and support you.


I have worked in state or local government for mostly my entire "career" (if you can call it that). I have been on both sides of criminal law, I have studied under a judge. I have done juvenile and adult criminal law. I have worked for the executive branch. I have done legislative research and helped revise or write law.

I would not ever claim to be a "mover or shaker", and any effect I might have had might be the slightest ripple. I cannot claim to have made a huge impact.

But I can say that I have seen society and government from many angles, and met politicians and public servants of all levels, from the bottom to the top.

I do not see the futility that you do, and nothing I have seen convinces me that "more guns" improves society the slightest.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Unedited, and my commentary is red.

Before getting into any specific points, I must address your overall tone. At every step, the basis for your argument is that the government is ineffective or outright corrupt. Though you haven't said so outright, the "solution" you're getting at is, essentially, no government.

The government is ineffective and corrupt. We must fight to remedy that, but it is a topic for another thread.

If such is the case, then, well, what can I say? We're never going to have no government, and really, if you believe there comes a day when your gun will protect you from the constitution being ripped to shred, then I have nothing. I do not see the situation to be as dire as you imply, and were the situation as you imply, I do not agree with the solution you propose.

1. Domestic Violence Firearms Removal
Digging back in my memory a bit, I believe any guns seized are held for 5 days; this is when the police remove a weapon from the scene of a reported incident before charges are brought and proved. Later in the proceedings, after notice and a hearing, the firearm can be removed longer or permanently, but by then both sides have had their day in court.

Just some clarification on that matter.

2. Your are a member of the miltia and may be called upon to fight
That may well be true, but does that mean your weapon is privately owned and stored? Do soldiers keep their weapons under their beds, or in an armory? Do police carry their shotguns on their backs, or in the trunk?

Even conceeding "you" are the militia, wouldn't the weapons you'd use in any fight against "invading" forces (not police purposes or home-defense) be put in a cache or base?

Historically, the militia has stored its firearms at the homes of the individual members. The Swiss have their rifles at home.

3. Guns for hunting
You don't bring a gun to a knife fight, but hunting isn't a knife fight. In a knife fight, you're being attacked unwillingly (i assume you didn't start it) and you need to save your life.

If you pack your bags into a truck, go out into the wild, and go after an animal, you'd have to concede that an automatic weapon or heavy weapon is unsporting.

Any gun is unsporting, truthfully. Deer cannot fight back.

It is true that you may not be committing crimes with a weapon, but others do, and as the situation stands, you are not living alone, nor even with a few other likeminded people.

That is why we have laws to punish those who commit crimes. We cannot circumvent the justice system and punish the innocent for the crimes of the wicked.

We are living in a large, dense, pluralistic society with many pressures pushing and pulling in many directions. Your wants and needs will collide with those of others. It is fundamental that we all make sacrifices to live in this particular civilized society.

I routinely sacrifice brain cells to see others driving or posting their YouTube videos. I should not need to sacrifice my life for someone's meth addiction.

You say that guns are fun. Nothing wrong with that. But if the purpose is fun, the argument for reducing restrictions is even weaker. Driving 100mph is fun, but I don't believe regulating against it is unreasonable.

Sticking to self-defense or militia grounds is more convincing.

4. What if my home is invaded by gun-toting villains?

If three men enter your home armed, and you pull out your glock, the result is a 3 on 1 gun fight.

How does that end?

3 dead bad guys and an insurance claim.

You shouldn't get your stuff taken, but a gun in every household in an urban environment does not seem like the best solution. My opinion may differ in a less densely populated area.

5. The Tyranny of the grid

You want a gun because you don't want to pay social security, welfare, or medicaid? How does a gun solve any of those alleged problems? Are you going to shoot the IRS?

You missed my point there. Those are some of the tyrannies the Second Amendment was created to protect against. Governments are supposed to be afraid of their people.

Those are political issues that are addressed in a political forum. If you intend on emptying your holster to change people's minds on political issues, then this debate is going no where. Are you going to shoot me because I vote on the opposite side of your views?

No, I'm going to use logic and reason to try to advance my cause. I will only shoot the wicked.

6. You are the Police, you don't need them"?

Because the police isn't acting the way you believe they should act, you're going to get a gun and shoot everyone you want shot that they don't shoot (sorry if that needs a second reading)?

No, I'm going to defend myself and my country. I am saying that we have given the police too much power, including too much firepower. They have a monopoly on use of force.

I can understand if you don't have faith in the police. I cannot argue that all police are good, and I have no idea what the police are like in your area...but I do not agree that the solution, again, is superior firepower.

I was talking more along the lines of people being the police in the sense you've laid out below. I'm a big believer in community-oriented policing.

I have a suggestion:

If the police aren't up to spec, gather up some of your community and make some noise.

or

Quit your job. Enter the police academy. Join the army. Enter public service.

You want to defend your property and community because the police suck? Become police, be a good cop.

Too much bureaucratic bullshit in the police. I'd get stuck doing a lot of stuff I'm really not comfortable doing.

You think our country isn't being protected? Join the military, fight hard to defend us.

Our leadership is not concerned enough about our country for me to fight for them. No longer do our soldiers fight for the people, but for the politicians.

If you want to police "us" properly, go out and do it. I would applaud you and support you.


I have worked in state or local government for mostly my entire "career" (if you can call it that). I have been on both sides of criminal law, I have studied under a judge. I have done juvenile and adult criminal law. I have worked for the executive branch. I have done legislative research and helped revise or write law.

I would not ever claim to be a "mover or shaker", and any effect I might have had might be the slightest ripple. I cannot claim to have made a huge impact.

But I can say that I have seen society and government from many angles, and met politicians and public servants of all levels, from the bottom to the top.

I do not see the futility that you do, and nothing I have seen convinces me that "more guns" improves society the slightest.

More guns don't need to improve society except by removing those least deserving of continued existence from the gene pool, at least right now.

We need to fix society and then guns will no longer be an issue.

[unwed_transient]

i went to the range today to celebrate.

i'm tired of this "government knows better than you" attitude. the big government welfare state causes more problems than it solves.

now why couldn't we have gotten it right with the detainee case?

edit:

and if this weren't illustrative enough of the importance of your (gun crew) vote in nov., if obama gets in it is estimated that he will get at least one appointment to the Supreme Court. it's sketchy enough with kennedy, but do you want another stephens? had this case appeared one year from now, it would have been the impetus for many more initiatives to circumvent constitutional protections.

[GSXRJJordan]

Most intelligent thread on Zilvia.

Option, you present a very good argument. I hope nothing happens in your life that pushes you to "our" side... chances are it won't, but if it does you'll arm yourself/your loved ones in a heartbeat.

KA24DES, you present the argument of the modern "libertarian" very well. I agree, 100%.

/beating dead horse.

[imotion s14]

Even conceeding "you" are the militia, wouldn't the weapons you'd use in any fight against "invading" forces (not police purposes or home-defense) be put in a cache or base?

The 2nd was a provision against a domestic AND foreign government. The Revolutionary War was not fought against a invading foreign force. It was a domestic dispute--a civil war between Great Britain and their 13 BRITISH colonies. They were fighting their own government and army.

[OptionZero]

The Second Amendment was created to combat oppression like welfare, medicaid, etc?

I do not agree with your definition of oppression.

As I mentioned above, those are political issues to be addressed through the political process.

Guns won't give you back what's taken out of your paycheck, and when the time comes that they can, well, there isn't a much left to talk about.


Second point:
The police are corrupt and ineffective to the point you'd do without them entirely, yet you don't feel you should or can fix the problem.

We do not live in a society where you can turn your back on the police or the government or any institution we do not agree with, nor do I believe it is one where the solution is to arm yourself and shun any outside influence not to your liking.

Very frankly speaking, a more fitting solution would be to find a different city, state, or even a different country whose social compact you agree with, and become part of that community.


Your final point is the most confusing to me: we need to fix society, then guns will be iirrelevant.

I agree absolutely. Yet why is so much of your argument about setting yourself apart from society and its institutions and arming yourself to, speaking dramatically, blast the people that cross you?

If you recognize the need to fix something, it seems like a better attitude would be to become part of the solution.

If you don't believe joining the police or military is worth your time, there must be other outlets.

Become a teacher. Volunteer at a preschool.

Better yet, adopt a child. Instill good values and strong awareness.

Make the future better.

None of us individually can do anything- but that's the same logic that lead to the apathy and corruption and inefficiency that's plaguing the country today.

The solution, i think, is to get over ourselves and do something, even if we give up a little of own in the process.

KA24DEssone, instead of hunting me or anyone else done that's disagreed with you here, you've taken, what I assume, must be some time out of your day to write down your opinion and reasoning coherently. That's more than most people will ever do for any issue, guns or not. If anyone here has bothered to read what either of us have written down, then that, too, has already been more than your average citizen bothers to do.

Is what you've just done the past day or two so far removed from being less armed and more active in your community, wherever you are?

Yes, without a gun, you might not be able to shoot the bad guys that want to steal your stuff. I don't think you should have to suffer that
But instead of stocking up on ammunition and weapons in preparation of the day you need to shoot a tax collector, wouldn't your time and effort be better spent making sure some kid somewhere doesn't have to rob someone's house?

[KA24DESOneThree]

The Second Amendment was created to combat oppression like welfare, medicaid, etc?

I do not agree with your definition of oppression.

Most people would not. We have strayed too far from our origins. The Second Amendment is another arrow in our quiver of governmental controls.

As I mentioned above, those are political issues to be addressed through the political process.

Guns won't give you back what's taken out of your paycheck, and when the time comes that they can, well, there isn't a much left to talk about.


Second point:
The police are corrupt and ineffective to the point you'd do without them entirely, yet you don't feel you should or can fix the problem.

I never said that. I said that their powers have been grossly exaggerated. In fact, I said that I support community-oriented policing.

We do not live in a society where you can turn your back on the police or the government or any institution we do not agree with, nor do I believe it is one where the solution is to arm yourself and shun any outside influence not to your liking.

Very frankly speaking, a more fitting solution would be to find a different city, state, or even a different country whose social compact you agree with, and become part of that community.


Your final point is the most confusing to me: we need to fix society, then guns will be iirrelevant.

No, we need to fix society, then gun control will be irrelevant.

I agree absolutely. Yet why is so much of your argument about setting yourself apart from society and its institutions and arming yourself to, speaking dramatically, blast the people that cross you?

I have no reason to set myself apart from society, nor should I have to set myself apart from society due to my views.

I am not going to "blast" someone for crossing me. I'm going to "blast" someone for trying to harm me, my family, or any other innocent person.

If you recognize the need to fix something, it seems like a better attitude would be to become part of the solution.

If you don't believe joining the police or military is worth your time, there must be other outlets.

Become a teacher. Volunteer at a preschool.

Better yet, adopt a child. Instill good values and strong awareness.

I'm too selfish to adopt a child or become a teacher. I need more money to support my hobbies. I am willing to be politically active because hey, they're the decision makers.[COLOR]

Make the future better.

[COLOR="Red"]That is why I fight for my constitutional rights and the rights of others.

None of us individually can do anything- but that's the same logic that lead to the apathy and corruption and inefficiency that's plaguing the country today.

The solution, i think, is to get over ourselves and do something, even if we give up a little of own in the process.

KA24DEssone, instead of hunting me or anyone else done that's disagreed with you here, you've taken, what I assume, must be some time out of your day to write down your opinion and reasoning coherently. That's more than most people will ever do for any issue, guns or not. If anyone here has bothered to read what either of us have written down, then that, too, has already been more than your average citizen bothers to do.

I'm not hunting you. I have no reason to hunt you. You disagree with me, that's all.

Is what you've just done the past day or two so far removed from being less armed and more active in your community, wherever you are?

More armed and more active is my plan. I modified my AR into an attachable-mag rifle yesterday morning and then posted in this thread, which may have made some member out there go "hmmm..."

Yes, without a gun, you might not be able to shoot the bad guys that want to steal your stuff. I don't think you should have to suffer that
But instead of stocking up on ammunition and weapons in preparation of the day you need to shoot a tax collector, wouldn't your time and effort be better spent making sure some kid somewhere doesn't have to rob someone's house?

I don't want to help some kid. I want to help all kids by keeping their rights intact.

You're being completely and totally ridiculous by saying "in preparation for the day you need to shoot a tax collector." That shows the complete and total lack of respect you have for my position. I'm not a crazy person, I'm someone who loves his country and his fellow man. My fight for our rights should prove that.

Your tone has changed from slightly argumentative to slightly condescending. I realize that I am a bit radical. You're taking my arguments to a bit of an extreme.

[imotion s14]

The Second Amendment was created to combat oppression like welfare, medicaid, etc?

I do not agree with your definition of oppression.


If they have the power to throw a person in jail and seize all of the fruits of their labor if they refuse to be coerced by force into a scheme that redistributes wealth, then yes it is oppression.

wouldn't your time and effort be better spent making sure some kid somewhere doesn't have to rob someone's house?

No one is born with obligations to anyone but themselves. Theft by government or by individuals is wrong no matter how you slice it.

[OptionZero]

Have you ever heard of the social compact theory?

In exchange for living in society, we concede that we must all make concessions.

The alternative is no-government, which is fine...but if that's the life you want, it won't be on American soil. Your philosophies must give way to reality.

Moreover, I contest that taking by government or other individuals is "theft". You did not come into the world with anything, nor did you acquire all that you have in a vacuum of your own labor or merit. Society existed before you came into this world, and the institutions and social structures that exist around you played some part in putting you where you are today.

Maybe you worked hard in your job and bought a nice car. Congratulations. But who operates the roads you drive on? Who sends water onto your property? Nothing you own comes without strings that tie you to the world surrounding you, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

All the guns in the world do not change the fact that you owe something to someone(s)/thing(s) else.

[OptionZero]

Your tone has changed from slightly argumentative to slightly condescending. I realize that I am a bit radical. You're taking my arguments to a bit of an extreme.

Aren't your points lending themselves to extremism? Didn't you outright say, "you are the police?" That was spoken as an absolute, and there was no qualifier.

If I have taken your point too far, then I apologize. Correct me.

But really,...how far did I stretch it?

Were my counterpoints not valid?

EDIT:
I do apologize for sounding like I'm on a soapbox. It's easy to get carried away, and I did.
You're being honest, so I thats what i should be, and nothing more.

[Mi Beardo es Loco]

soooo.....I'm confused. The Constitution is something the government DOESN'T wipe their asses with? wow. Never knew that.

[unwed_transient]

Have you ever heard of the social compact theory?

In exchange for living in society, we concede that we must all make concessions.

The alternative is no-government, which is fine...but if that's the life you want, it won't be on American soil. Your philosophies must give way to reality.

Moreover, I contest that taking by government or other individuals is "theft". You did not come into the world with anything, nor did you acquire all that you have in a vacuum of your own labor or merit. Society existed before you came into this world, and the institutions and social structures that exist around you played some part in putting you where you are today.

Maybe you worked hard in your job and bought a nice car. Congratulations. But who operates the roads you drive on? Who sends water onto your property? Nothing you own comes without strings that tie you to the world surrounding you, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

All the guns in the world do not change the fact that you owe something to someone(s)/thing(s) else.

no one on the right claims we operate in a vacuum. what we argue for, among many other things is the reduction in the size and power of the federal government to administer social programs. studies have shown that assistance provided by the government leads to dependence and perpetrates a cycle of dependency. when the federal government touches things, they usually turn to crap.

[PhilthyS13]

I always loved the line "when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away."


In my experience, firearm owners are highly responsible because they wouldn't want to do anything to jeopardize that right. When people act irresponsibly at the range, the others usually put them in check. The violence you hear about in the news is usually associated with some sort of drug or gang activity, usually involving weapons that are surely not registered to the user. Think of all the restrictions we have in place in CA and take the Bologna family for example (just last week a father and his two sons were shot to death for blocking an intersection for a few seconds). Sure enough, the alleged shooter is a gang member:http://www.zilvia.net/f/showthread.php?t=200707
Take Isaac Espinoza as another example (SFPD killed in the line of duty): he was killed with a select fire AK - something you can't even legally possess. Banning legal ownership of firearms or severely restricting them will have no affect on the drug trade because they can get whatever they want. As long as the drug trade is flourishing, so will the battle over turf and the body count will continue to climb. I think the economy might have something to do with it as well. When people have jobs, they are too busy making money and everyone's happy.

The spree killers like Columbine/Amish School are few and far between. In fact, the most recent spree killer was that guy with a KNIFE in Japan. Even in a society without firearms, the spree killer still found a way.


As far as .50 cals, to my knowledge, you can still purchase semi-auto m2's because they are not "rifles" under the definition of the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004. I would think that m2's would be more of a threat to aircraft than a shoulder fired .50. I would have totally bought .50 BMG, but a) I didn't have 3+ grand laying around and b) I can't really afford 5 bucks a round. Those things are nuts.


As far as the Red Dawn scenario, I think the Jericho situation would be a better illustration of why people would keep a long gun in the basement. I don't think the Russians will invade Colorado with the Central American Communist forces any time soon. But the chaos following a nuclear attack like Jericho is at least plausible. Where I live I'm banking on being vaporized before I can feel anything, so I really don't care. A huge earthquake might be a different story.

Personally, I enjoy shooting. Maybe it's because some of my only family heirlooms are old ass rifles. One side of my family had a whale oil business in the 1860's at 514 Front St here in SF and the other invested heavily in CSA bonds. Smart investments that guarantee that I will have to work until I'm 70. Soooo, the only things worth anything are the guns. I'd be damned if I had to give them up.

If you haven't gone shooting before, I highly recommend trying it. OptionZero, check out Jackson Arms in South City. They can teach you general gun safety and they rent out a variety of handguns. They're pretty nice. Just tell them you're a first timer and they should take care of you. That's where my dad took me for my first time. It's a rush everytime I go. Or you could go to the Lake Merced rod and gun club before they close it. I've never been.

What's funny is stuff like skeet shooting used to be as mainstream as golf. Shit, once upon a time you could go skeet shooting and then have a smoke at dinner while eating rare red meat with your wife in her mink stole. It's amazing how much things have changed in the past 2 generations.

But living in California, I seriously doubt this ruling will affect us much.

[KA24DESOneThree]

The M2 is still legal because of the butterfly grip, but lugging around 80 pounds of semi-automatic rifle is a bit tiresome. The tripod setup adds 40 pounds as well.

To OZ:

I said "the people are the police and the police are the people." Sir Robert Peel came up with this idea, and our police system is founded upon his ideals. This is not some insane ranting, this is simply an ideology created by the forefather of our police system.

You said several things which were incorrect. I pointed them out in my previous post.

[OptionZero]

WE ARE THE POLICE. If we cannot police ourselves, we deserve all the violence we can get. Until we have policed ourselves properly, guns will be a necessity.

This is the part to which I am referring.

no one on the right claims we operate in a vacuum. what we argue for, among many other things is the reduction in the size and power of the federal government to administer social programs. studies have shown that assistance provided by the government leads to dependence and perpetrates a cycle of dependency. when the federal government touches things, they usually turn to crap.

And how, exactly, does your disagreement with the policies of the federal government relate to less restrictive gun regulation?

Will more/easier gun ownership lower taxes?

I fail to see any correlation.

"gun control" advocates have been accused of assigning some special, mystical evilness with firearms, that's why they're "afraid" of them.

Yet to me, "gun ownership" advocates seem to fight remarkably hard to keep them- harder perhaps than on any other social or political issue.

All when we all agree that a gun is a tool, a piece of machinery that's just really good at its job (killing).

That is the disconnect that I do not understand.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Hopefully this will work, as it was being pissy earlier.

This is the part to which I am referring.

Look at the first sentence in the previous paragraph. Without community intervention and cooperation, the government-employed police cannot defeat crime, hence we need to police ourselves.

And how, exactly, does your disagreement with the policies of the federal government relate to less restrictive gun regulation?

Will more/easier gun ownership lower taxes?

I fail to see any correlation.

This I know, and you will continue to fail to see any correlation until you change your beliefs.

The government does not do only good. The government, just like every government, will overstep its boundaries and oppress its people. It's done it to black people, to gay people, to Latinos, and it will continue to oppress us, its citizens, as long as we allow it. I've had it easy as a straight white guy, but I realize the struggles others have had.

I'll give you some quotes:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." -- Mohandas Gandhi

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." -- George Washington

"It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law. In areas where our people are the constant victims of brutality, and the government seems unable or unwilling to protect them, we should form rifle clubs that can be used to defend our lives and our property in times of emergency, such as happened last year in Birmingham, Plaquemine, Louisiana; Cambridge, Maryland; and Dan ville, Virginia. When our people are being bitten by dogs they are within their rights to kill those dogs. We should be peaceful, law-abiding--but the time has come for the American Negro to fight back in self-defense whenever and wherever he is being unjustly and unlawfully attacked."-- Malcolm X in a press conference, New York City, March 13th 1963

"gun control" advocates have been accused of assigning some special, mystical evilness with firearms, that's why they're "afraid" of them.

Yet to me, "gun ownership" advocates seem to fight remarkably hard to keep them- harder perhaps than on any other social or political issue.

All when we all agree that a gun is a tool, a piece of machinery that's just really good at its job (killing).

Gun control advocates regard it as a tool which creates evil in its owner and as a tool for which the only job is murder. It is safe in the hands of the military and the police, but the private citizen is untrustworthy and stupid.

Gun ownership advocates don't see the gun as a tool as much as a symbol. It is a symbol of resistance to tyranny, a symbol of self-reliance, a symbol of taking charge of one's own life rather than leaving it to others. It's not that we crave the bang or the flash, or that we want to hurt people, it's that we don't want to be trod upon by anyone who wishes to deprive us of other rights.

That is the disconnect that I do not understand.

[just1pepsi]

All I will say on the topic of Auto/Assault Weapons is that we the people should have at least the same weapons available to us as the Federal Govt's Military, and the States Police forces. This is in the event that we have to use them against the Fed/State Govt. Thats argueably what the Second Amendment is all about. We will either own them legally or othwise, obvoiusly the preferred is legally.

[OptionZero]

If it's a symbol, I think it's an empty one, since a gun is a poor solution for the problem's you've mentioned.

You say that the police can't be successful without community intervention, but you seem to be advocating more than a cooperation; you advocated completely abandoning the police and acting independently. That's not cooperation, that's anarchy.

You just mentioned that government's do more than good- I've never said government was perfect. The sense I got earlier from you was goverment did no good- which is why you "needed" guns.

I don't see how clinging to a symbol is less ridiculous than thinking that a tool could "inspire evil" in its owners (which now you must admit is melodramatic).

[KA24DESOneThree]

We could completely abandon a state-run police organization and create our own citizen's police, but we'd use the same training and have to operate under the same guidelines as far as conduct and use of force goes. It's fine for a state-run police to exist, they just need to understand that they've grown too big for their britches and we need to reel them in a bit.

Banning a weapon because it has been used in a crime is not assuming it inspires evil? Banning a weapon because it has features similar to those of military firearms is not assuming it inspires evil? Please. Any law regulating behavior assumes that the behavior being regulated is negative.

Clinging to a symbol? What is our flag? The blindfolded woman bearing a scale in our courthouses? Any one of the structures or memorials at the National Mall? An entire country can rally behind a symbol because that symbol gives them strength, brings out the best in them.

You still don't understand. I don't blame you.

[OptionZero]

What assurance can you give me that a citizen's police won't grow corrupt and overstep its britches as well? In such an event, what sort of accountability would there be, except for someone else to start another police force to reel them in? Repeatedly you suggested a privately run entity to displace a government run one, but what makes you think private citizen would do a better job? Your private police force will have the same training and guidelines, but who's going to enforce them? Who runs the internal affairs? Who vets the officers? For all the effort to organize a worthwhile "private" police force, why not devote the same energy into fixing the police that's already out there, the same question I ask of you for any institution you want to replace or shun?

Weapons are not banned because they are used in crime, but because when they are used in crime they add an additional danger to the situation. You can't shoot someone while your robbing a store if you don't have a gun, therefore the only question is whether or not the laws and law enforcement which are supposed to preventing that robber from having a guy are doing their jobs.

There's no fight over whether or not there's a constitutional right to bear flags, so the analogy is misplaced. We are, however, talking about the bounds of the right to bear arms.

I bring up the "symbolism" because you mentioned it as reason[ for owning guns. Bringing up other symbols adds nothing to the argument. You want to own guns because they're a symbol (to you), I said first that symbolism does not outweigh the concerns I've mentioned about guns and second that the symbolism is misplaced anyways.

The flag, memorials, other symbols...your raising a red herring. They do not address the point that guns are tools intended (and effective at their job) to injure or kill- that any symbolic meaning attached to them does not outweigh that they are, again, tools intended.

At this stage, I have to ask, is anything I'm saying changing your mind? I think I have a pretty good grasp on where you're coming from, even if I don't agree.

[KA24DESOneThree]

Let me start with no, nothing you're saying is changing my mind. You regard firearms negatively, and I have my AR leaned up next to me. I'm waiting for C Products to catch up with demand for 10/30s so I can have a "proper" evil black rifle, although I could always go with an L5 Lancer mag...

"Could" implies a suggestion. I didn't say we should completely abandon the state-run police organization. I merely offered an alternate idea which would, I agree, run into the exact same problems down the line.

We should fix the police, and fix the government. First we have to fix ourselves.

Weapons are banned because people have used them in crimes. Federal response to crime wave of late '20s/early '30s? NFA of 1934 banning SBRs and full-auto without the appropriate tax coupons. Washington DC response to crime wave of late '60s through today? Handgun ban. Chicago and SF response? Handgun ban. Targeted bans because of use in crime.

Symbolism is never misplaced. Is it sometimes given to odd or, in an outsider's eyes, undeserving objects or ideas, but in the end the power lies in the believer and not in the outsider.

You think guns are tools intended to kill, hell, they are tools intended to injure or kill. But are they not also a symbol? Is it really that hard to understand that something can be a tool and a symbol? The hammer and sickle, as much as I hate to reference them, are both tools and symbols. To me, my gun does not kill or wound. My gun simply protects. There is no evil inherent in it, nor does it bring out the evil in me.

Molon labe.

[02BRB20]

Guns are for pussies, its easy to pull a trigger anyone can do it; now killing a man with your own hands or a sword or object, thats real, thats how it should be. You want to steal my wallet you better be ready to fight me for it. Guns should be banned period and to compensate all the gun junkies out there the gov should open up massive gun ranges all around the US, more jobs less death.

and no one feed me the whole "constitutional rights" bs, that shit was written in the 18th century when English soliders and Indians could attack at any time, its an outdated law trying to apply itself to the 21st century that does more harm than good.

To me, my gun does not kill or wound. My gun simply protects. There is no evil inherent in it, nor does it bring out the evil in me.

dude what the fuck are you talking about, weapons themselves are inherently evil; what do you think they were created for in the first place, happy fun time? Only candyasses would run away if they saw you hold it up, sometime in the future you're bound to fire it at someone which will wound them and possibly kill them a la evil but keep thinking your backwards philosphy, its that kind of thinking that feeds into the U.S' homicide problem.

[Omarius Maximus]

Optionzero, ideally, political issues should be solved through a political process...but there really isn't a political process anymore.

There is an entire system built specifically to undermine the people. Who has the most political clout? We the people? Or Big interest?

If you work through the system to change this country, the system slowly changes you into one of them.

For god's sake, the only way you can get elected into office is by spending millions of advertising/campaign dollars. The majority of us aren't rich...big business will leverage us the money, but by taking their money, we are inclined to do them favors.

[Jung918]

Guns are for pussies, its easy to pull a trigger anyone can do it; now killing a man with your own hands or a sword or object, thats real, thats how it should be. You want to steal my wallet you better be ready to fight me for it. Guns should be banned period and to compensate all the gun junkies out there the gov should open up massive gun ranges all around the US, more jobs less death.

and no one feed me the whole "constitutional rights" bs, that shit was written in the 18th century when English soliders and Indians could attack at any time, its an outdated law trying to apply itself to the 21st century that does more harm than good.



dude what the fuck are you talking about, weapons themselves are inherently evil; what do you think they were created for in the first place, happy fun time? Only candyasses would run away if they saw you hold it up, sometime in the future you're bound to fire it at someone which will wound them and possibly kill them a la evil but keep thinking your backwards philosphy, its that kind of thinking that feeds into the U.S' homicide problem.

contradict yourself much?

[KA24DESOneThree]

Guns are for pussies, its easy to pull a trigger anyone can do it; now killing a man with your own hands or a sword or object, thats real, thats how it should be. You want to steal my wallet you better be ready to fight me for it. Guns should be banned period and to compensate all the gun junkies out there the gov should open up massive gun ranges all around the US, more jobs less death.

and no one feed me the whole "constitutional rights" bs, that shit was written in the 18th century when English soliders and Indians could attack at any time, its an outdated law trying to apply itself to the 21st century that does more harm than good.

dude what the fuck are you talking about, weapons themselves are inherently evil; what do you think they were created for in the first place, happy fun time? Only candyasses would run away if they saw you hold it up, sometime in the future you're bound to fire it at someone which will wound them and possibly kill them a la evil but keep thinking your backwards philosphy, its that kind of thinking that feeds into the U.S' homicide problem.


Zilvians, please note: this is NOT how you contribute to intelligent discussion.

[OptionZero]

That post is why I wanted this thread to quietly retire

[slw240sx]

its probably been said before, and it will be said again. If you ban and make guns illegal then all you do is take them from the honest people who want to use them for protection. thief's,crooks,murders,gangster,and every other illegal entity will continue to use them. if they are made illegal for manufacture they will be imported. if the gov cant stop a war on drugs and importation and sales they will fail the same with firearms. that will leave this country ripe for the taking by any one wanting to make a fast buck. It will if anything breed more criminals because if less people can protect them selves more people will be tempted to take whats not theirs.

I am also for sending low level felons into the armed forces for a chance to earn back their citizenship and rights that are stripped away like right to bear arms.

but what do i know haha

[KA24DESOneThree]

That post is why I wanted this thread to quietly retire

I'm hoping someone else joins the fray with an intelligent point neither of us have touched on.

[mRclARK1]

They in all but complete practice have banned guns (for personal defense especially) in Canada.

Now guess who have illegal guns and know most other people likely don't?

Like I heard before "In Canada they'd rather have a raped dead woman, and an attacker to arrest and interrogate, then a live victim, who can give an explanation as to why her attacker is on the way to the hospital with a bullet wound"

Think logically here. Pretending I'm a criminal, if I'm willing to fire a weapon at someone, and possibly (or even intentionally) kill them? Why would I be afraid of committing a crime as minor in nature as possession of a prohibited weapon?

Granted making firearms illegal DOES make them harder for criminals to obtain, but not significantly so by any means. As well, any criminal intent on harming another always has a knife, a rock, a crow bar or bare hands. Not saying everyone and anyone should, or could, be allowed and trusted to own a gun or carry one. However an outright ban on civil ownership is not a logical course of action by any means at all.

02BRB20: Ending the life of another when you're close enough to see what color his eyes are is a lot harder then pulling the trigger on someone who's a silhouette at 50 yards.

Only a complete fucking idiot thinks either of them is something that's "easy", or should ever be done unless absolutely necessary.

[KA24DESOneThree]

I'm bumping this because I'm a zealot.

The whole gun issue isn't just about having firearms. It's about having the freedom to own firearms with which to defend oneself and one's country. It's about freedom in the macro, self-reliance in the micro.

To remove firearms from the equation is to remove a chunk of freedom. In a country where our freedoms are already being infringed by a too-strong police organization and an overly inquisitive Department of Homeland Security, in addition to a president with no regard for the Constitution and a Supreme Court with an axe to grind, we cannot become complacent in the exercise and protection of our rights and freedoms.

This is our country, and we have the final word. Our Constitution, and our resolve, is not to be trifled with.