The Clinton gun ban has expired!

[tep0583]

I understand target shooting as a sport, I did it in the RAF cadets. I enjoy shooting rifles and guns at targets. It's a skill.

But why anybody other than people who use them in the military would actually want, or should be allowed to own a firearm is beyond me.

Look at your first paragraph. You answered your own question. In my case, I DO target shoot (more specifically I shoot competition, Service Rifle Class) The so-called "assult" rifle known as the AR-15 is currently the top dog in this class because of its inhearent accurate shooting attributes. The number two rifle in this class is the M1A, another rifle that is often mistakenly referred to as an assult rifle.

Secondarily, my AR can be used in a self-defense situation, if nessessary. I probably won't ever need it, but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it. It does give me a firepower advantage over the typical criminal. I wouldn't have it any other way. If I end up in a situation where I have no other choice but to defend myself and my loved ones, I damn sure don't believe in making it a fair fight. I'll take any advantage I can get.

(and don't give me that 'it's so we can defend ourselves and our country,and take our country back from an opressive government' crap... you have that now and i dont see any of you taking to the streets)

OK, so defense isn't a legitamate reason? Since when? One of the rights you are granted in this country is the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property (amoung other things). An armed population is a safeguard against an opressive government, it keeps the politicians honest, if you will. True, a loosely-organized band of armed citizens would have little chance against an army such as the one the US has, but that scenerio also doesn't take into account the troops that will refuse to take up arms against their fellow citizens and the general political sucide that politicians that tried to force the armed forces upon the citizens of this country would face.  I simply don't think there's too many politicians out there that will see the good in having to kill millions of Americans and and armed populace forces them to take that into account.

And the whole 'opressive government' thing, that's a matter of opinion. Our government is nowhere near as opressive as a great majority of the governments out there. Things would have to get much orse, in my opinion, before anyone's going to take to the street.

[tep0583]

To everybody who 'doesn't see the need' to own arms, consider this:

The Bill of Rights is a collection of 'rights' not 'needs' there is nothing outlined there that is absolutely nessessary to anyone's survival. All of it, however, is important to the preservation of America and the type of country that she was intended to be. You could take every one of those rights away and you'd still have a country. It just wouldn't be America.

You have no 'need' for the right to free assembly or speach.

You have no 'need' for the right to be free of self-incrimination.

You have no 'need' for the right to be free from illegal search and seizure.

(yo uget the idea)

It's not about your 'needs', its about your rights. There's a huge difference between the two. Any loss of rights, ANY rights, should be something that each and every one of us should take very seriously. A lot of time, effort, and blood went into securing those rights and, once they're gone, we'll pay hell getting them back.

[RacerX]

To everybody who 'doesn't see the need' to own arms, consider this:

The Bill of Rights is a collection of 'rights' not 'needs' there is nothing outlined there that is absolutely nessessary to anyone's survival. All of it, however, is important to the preservation of America and the type of country that she was intended to be. You could take every one of those rights away and you'd still have a country. It just wouldn't be America.

You have no 'need' for the right to free assembly or speach.

You have no 'need' for the right to be free of self-incrimination.

You have no 'need' for the right to be free from illegal search and seizure.

(yo uget the idea)

It's not about your 'needs', its about your rights. There's a huge difference between the two. Any loss of rights, ANY rights, should be something that each and every one of us should take very seriously. A lot of time, effort, and blood went into securing those rights and, once they're gone, we'll pay hell getting them back.

Amen, brother.  I couldn't have said it any better.  If that makes me a "gun nut", so be it.

[shmokes]

So does that include rocket propelled grenades or shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile launchers?  Does it include weaponized anthrax or sarin gas?

It's a cop-out to hide behind the second amendment.  It's like saying that not allowing cars on the road that aren't "street legal" is taking away your ability to drive.

THESE RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE!!!

You have no 'need' for the right to free assembly or speach.

The Supreme Court has upheld time-and-place laws for speech, such as those prohibiting protestors from coming within set distances from abortion clinics and people entering and exiting those clinics.  Protestors must apply for protesting permits.  Slander and Libel are illegal.  Physically threatening people is illegal.  The FCC censors television and radio stations.  In 2003 the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a devout Muslim woman would not be allowed to wear her full-faced veil in her drivers license picture, even though she belongs to a centuries old religion which forbids her to show her face to strangers or men outside her immediate family.

You have no 'need' for the right to be free of self-incrimination.

Illinois v. Perkins (1990) - Supreme Court ruled that police officers may pose as prisoners to interrogate other prisoners without reading them Miranda warnings.  Coerced Self-incrimination obtained in this way is admissible in court.

Brown v. Illinois (1975) - Supreme Court ruled that confessions may be admissible even when they were preceeded by an illegal search and seizure (the confession, of course, would probably not have occurred if the police didn't already have the evidence they obtained illegally)

You have no 'need' for the right to be free from illegal search and seizure.

U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) - The Supreme Court ruled that people at borders may be subjected to warrantless searches without any requirement of reasonable suspicion.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) - The Supreme Court ruled that minors are not protected by the 4th Amendment to the same degree as adults. (A high school student was forced to comply with a warrantless search of her purse, looking for marijuana)

Illinois v. Wardlaw (2000) - The Supreme Court ruled that running in a high crime neighborhood is enough to justify a stop and initial warrantless search by police.

Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - The Supreme Court ruled that cars do not enjoy the same 4th Amendment protection from search & seizure as houses and offices. (Cops stopped and searched the car without a warrant looking for alcohol -- this was during prohibition)


I'm sorry, I'm sure this is dull lesson in constitutional law, but I tried to say all this in broader terms just a few posts ago and it seems to have been ignored.  The protections in the Bill of Rights are extremely important, but they have to be balanced.  You can't let people sacrifice virgins and drink their blood in order to not infringe on their freedom of religion.  

Some weapons HAVE TO BE BANNED.  You might make a compelling argument (though I don't know how) that assault rifles do not reach this level, but clearly there is a threshold as to what weapons can be legal.  Please refer to the list of weapons at the beginning of this post.  Would you argue that a nuclear briefcase bomb cannot be outlawed because of the 2nd amendment?

[Mameotron]

Actually, if you can get a permit from The Nuclear Regulatory Comission, there is no law against owning a properly liscenced Nuclear device of any kind.


Yes, I'm being a smarta$$, I get what you are saying.

I must admit that if you are ever put in a situation where someone points a gun at you, it completely changes your outlook on gun control.

[DrewKaree]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

I respectfully disagree. Guns do kill people. For every story about someone defending him/herself with a gun, there are probably twenty stories about...

That's just irresponsible and emotional talk coming forth.  You say "probably", have absolutely nothing to back up that statement and can only fall back on "PROBABLY".  If you think that there are 20 stories about THE GUN killing people (rather than the people using a gun to kill people, including themselves) you'd also have to believe that the news is just supressing these stories.  That argument is beyond reason

"And the National Rifle Association says that, 'Guns don't kill people, people do,' but I think the gun helps, you know? I think it helps. I just think just standing there going, 'Bang'! That's not going to kill too many people, is it? You'd have to be really dodgy on the heart to have that�"

-Eddie Izzard, "Dressed to Kill"

Is this kind of like standing there going "Stab, stab, stab" not killing too many people with knives?  Please.  If someone intends to kill someone, they will search for a weapon.  Whether it's a knife, gun, rope, baseball bat....they will use SOMETHING.  Because THEY chose to use a gun should never mean that Joe Law-follower should have his ability to purchase a similar item taken away.  Punish the criminal, STOP treating the law-abiding worse than the law-breakers.

But why anybody ....would actually want, or should be allowed to own a firearm is beyond me.

People used to be killed for being a witch because the things they did "were beyond me" to those who couldn't figure out what they were doing.  Does your "logic" advocate that we should go back to doing that?  Just because it's beyond YOU doesn't mean legislate away the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase these items.  They become detrimental when those who would break the very laws written to stop the use of those items do exactly that.

(and don't give me that 'it's so we can defend ourselves and our country,and take our country back from an opressive government' crap... you have that now and i dont see any of you taking to the streets)

I guess REASON and the capability to follow the law DOES make a difference, hey?!?  What's next, are you going to tell me I should "rise up and fight" when the price of toilet paper increases due to the "oppressive government" regulations force this price increase?  I see many who protest this war, and I certainly don't see them taking to the streets with guns and pitchforks either.  That line of reasoning is beyond belief.  


Shmokes, I agree that we all believe in SOME form of control, such as I don't need a Patriot missile or a nuclear briefcase.  You make a valid point there.  My problem is with people who would say that a ban on certain types of weapons will keep us safer.  When compared to other death factors, this ban wasn't/isn't justified, unless we as a society are willing to go along with a ban on all other items that kill in the same (or higher) ratios.  When you stop to think that that would mean banning cars (ANY car, not just SUV's) and other variously extreme examples, then it becomes easier to see why so many don't agree with a start on the "ban parade" with assault weapons.  Pandora's Box comes to mind.


Floyd10 (james), I found your replies to be very hard to follow.  Could you elaborate, or further flesh out your replies.  It seems some of them don't apply to the parts you are replying to.  Can ya help a brutha out?

[fredster]

There is a difference between a "BAN" and "regulated".

Like Banning cigarettes would be very upsetting to about 40% of the population.  But nobody has a problem with "regulated" use and sale of cigarettes.

It's mostly the "BAN" thing people have a problem with.

The two concepts shouldn't be confused. Only fanatics think that things should be "BANNED".

[shmokes]

If someone intends to kill someone, they will search for a weapon.  Whether it's a knife, gun, rope, baseball bat....they will use SOMETHING.  

That's nonsense.  You're lumping all gun-violence into the relatively small context of premeditated murder with motive.  The gun facilitates it.  Your argument is like saying, "Student aid doesn't increase the number of people who choose to go to school, befcause when someone really WANTS to go to school they will find some way to do it."  But, of course, the easier you make something -- the more accessible you make something -- the more that thing is going to happen.  It is astronomically more difficult to kill someone (especially to kill someone and get away with it) with any of those other weapons you mentioned (knife, gun, rope, bat).

Shmokes, I agree that we all believe in SOME form of control, such as I don't need a Patriot missile or a nuclear briefcase...  

...so we're back on need, now?  How do you know you'll never need a rocket-propelled grenade launcher?  What if we are occupied?  They certainly have been useful for Iraqi resistance fighters...  And I thought your side believed that this was about a right to own these weapons, not about a need.

When you stop to think that that would mean banning cars (ANY car, not just SUV's)

Ah...the slippery slope.  Ban assault rifles and what's next?  Forks?  Penicillin?  The problem is, these things don't exist in a vacuum.  We balance their overall effect on society.  Do cars kill people?  Yes.  Do they do anything else that significantly affects our society?  I think maybe they do.  Do guns kill people?  Yes.  Do they serve other, useful purposes?  Sure, of course.  But we "ban" cars all the time.  Some cars are not allowed to be driven on U.S. roads (this amounts to an all-out ban), some people are not allowed to drive cars (very young, very old, blind, etc.).  Cars are required to meet certain safety standards before they can be sold.

People, I think, tense up and dig their hills in whenever they hear the words "gun control" when, in fact, they truly do believe in gun control.  But since they automatically switch to defend-to-the-death mode any time someone suggests changes in gun regulation it makes them unable to step outside the box and say, "okay...I do actually believe in regulation.  With that said, maybe I should actually give some thought into what amount of regulation is best instead of obstinately claiming that all gun control is bad."

I don't think all guns should be banned outright.  Many liberals do, and I think they suffer from the same ideological mental block as the "gun-nuts".  They refuse to actually apply any meaningful analysis to the issue.  One side says, "GUNS KILL," and the other side says, "PEOPLE KILL," and niether one can see the forest for the trees.  Maybe, and I'm just throwing this out, but just maybe it's a little of both.  

[Floyd10]

Well What Im saying is, not everything you've said is entirely true. I listed reasons... I dont memorize my posts...

[DYNAGOD]

unfortunetly for me I live in shithole massachusetts..
most if not all the assault weapons no longer banned by federal law have been banned permanently here under state law..its ridiculous...

shame so many people in the country cant throw away their freedom fast enough....

[tep0583]

So does that include rocket propelled grenades or shoulder-fired surface-to-air missile launchers?  Does it include weaponized anthrax or sarin gas?

It's a cop-out to hide behind the second amendment.  It's like saying that not allowing cars on the road that aren't "street legal" is taking away your ability to drive.

THESE RIGHTS ARE NOT ABSOLUTE!!!

That was my point.

(BTW- the whole RPG, SAM, nuke arguement is the usual cop-out that I always see in these arguements. You seem to be a well-read guy, look up the miller case and how it defined 'arms' as it applies to the 2nd)

The Supreme Court has upheld time-and-place laws for speech, such as those prohibiting protestors from coming within set distances from abortion clinics and people entering and exiting those clinics.  Protestors must apply for protesting permits.  Slander and Libel are illegal.  Physically threatening people is illegal.  The FCC censors television and radio stations.  In 2003 the Florida Supreme Court ruled that a devout Muslim woman would not be allowed to wear her full-faced veil in her drivers license picture, even though she belongs to a centuries old religion which forbids her to show her face to strangers or men outside her immediate family.

And this equates to a 'need' for free speech how?

Illinois v. Perkins (1990) - Supreme Court ruled that police officers may pose as prisoners to interrogate other prisoners without reading them Miranda warnings.  Coerced Self-incrimination obtained in this way is admissible in court.

Brown v. Illinois (1975) - Supreme Court ruled that confessions may be admissible even when they were preceeded by an illegal search and seizure (the confession, of course, would probably not have occurred if the police didn't already have the evidence they obtained illegally)

See above. These are not 'needs', they're rights.

U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez (1985) - The Supreme Court ruled that people at borders may be subjected to warrantless searches without any requirement of reasonable suspicion.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) - The Supreme Court ruled that minors are not protected by the 4th Amendment to the same degree as adults. (A high school student was forced to comply with a warrantless search of her purse, looking for marijuana)

Illinois v. Wardlaw (2000) - The Supreme Court ruled that running in a high crime neighborhood is enough to justify a stop and initial warrantless search by police.

Carroll v. U.S. (1925) - The Supreme Court ruled that cars do not enjoy the same 4th Amendment protection from search & seizure as houses and offices. (Cops stopped and searched the car without a warrant looking for alcohol -- this was during prohibition)

Still not a 'need'. We're still in rights-land here.

I'm sorry, I'm sure this is dull lesson in constitutional law, but I tried to say all this in broader terms just a few posts ago and it seems to have been ignored.  The protections in the Bill of Rights are extremely important, but they have to be balanced.  You can't let people sacrifice virgins and drink their blood in order to not infringe on their freedom of religion.  

You're doing very well here. I'm in complete agreement.

Some weapons HAVE TO BE BANNED.  You might make a compelling argument (though I don't know how) that assault rifles do not reach this level, but clearly there is a threshold as to what weapons can be legal.  Please refer to the list of weapons at the beginning of this post.  Would you argue that a nuclear briefcase bomb cannot be outlawed because of the 2nd amendment?

If you followed through with your legal research, you'd already have your answer. 'Arms' as defined by [i[US vs. Miller[/i] (1939) defines arms outside such broad terms. I believe it distills down to no expectation to the right to own weapons above and beyond that issued to the average infantryman. (I'm sure our more knowledgeable members can abridge this interpertation as nessessary. I'll not have time to delve into it for a couple of days) That ends any talk of rocket launchers, heavy weapons, and even nukes.

Note that this doesn't even assure your access to actual "assult rifles" (select-fire weapons), as they were put under heavy restriction during the same time period. (although I do not know if it is the same action, I believe that was in 1934)

I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm standing up for one of the same rights that are so important, until it comes to the second.

[tep0583]

Actually, if you can get a permit from The Nuclear Regulatory Comission, there is no law against owning a properly liscenced Nuclear device of any kind.


Yes, I'm being a smarta$$, I get what you are saying.

I must admit that if you are ever put in a situation where someone points a gun at you, it completely changes your outlook on gun control.

Get a permit for a nuclear bomb, post it here.  i want to see what one of those looks like.  

It sure changed MY view of gun control. I now believe in equalizing the odds.

[DrewKaree]

Well What Im saying is, not everything you've said is entirely true. I listed reasons... I dont memorize my posts...

ok, that's part of debating, you don't believe everything I said is true, and then you list reasons for why you believe what you believe.  I'm not attacking you here, I just can't make sense of your reasons, as they don't seem to fit the points you selected, or they are simplistic statements that aren't substantive.  I'll give you an example or two:

After you've given us that foolproof plan, then you can tell me all your reasons for why ELSE we shouldn't be allowed to have them, but until then, we, as americans, are free (as in land of the free?) to purchase things that may be detrimental to our health and to the health of others.  I'll gladly give you the ability to ban all guns, no matter the type, when you ban:

WHOAH WHOAH WHOAH! slow down!

this is what I mean by not substantive.  Please realize I'm not looking to offend, it just doesn't have meaning unless you flesh out your words better.  I'm sure you DO mean to say something here, I just can't see what it is.  That's why I ask for clarification - to further the debate, rather than guess what your intentions are

1) alcohol (one of the top causes of traffic fatalities, right? AND bad for you!)

2) smoking of all kinds, ESPECIALLY the left-handed cigarettes, since second-hand smoke is attributed to cancer deaths in non-smokers

Not true. Marijuana (which is relatively harmless), Crack, Cocaine, Extacy, Shrooms, and more I'm not mentioning.

and here's an example of what I mean by hard to follow, please clarify.  You list 2 points and respond with "not true".  What exactly do you believe to be not true, and the second sentence seems as if you want to make a point with it, but there's nothing you are attaching those words to cohesively.  That's all I'm saying.

4)knives of ANY kind - second-most preferred weapon used in armed robberies, and something that can kill, if used by someone with criminal intent

Close... Switchblades are illegal. Gravity knives is a stretch.

what exactly is close?  


As far as memorizing your posts, I understand the sarcasm in that.  It'd be foolish to think that you WOULD memorize your over-600 posts.  What's not foolish is me asking you to go back, re-read what you said, and help me understand what you mean.  

Here's MY insertion of sarcasm:  Yeah, I guess you'd rather memorize your posts than to read what you wrote.

That's all I'm asking for james - not a personal attack on you, you seem to be a good young $#!7...you are probably a very personable human being.  It would behoove you to polish your debate skills, since others may look to you as "Cool guy I need to listen to".  If I can get you to see reason, *slyly insert pointed jab here* maybe I'll be able to get you to become a nice normal Republican, after all.  
 

I'd have you over and buy you a beer to calm you down, but you'd turn me in for obtaining alcohol for a minor...commie

[tep0583]

If someone intends to kill someone, they will search for a weapon.  Whether it's a knife, gun, rope, baseball bat....they will use SOMETHING.  

That's nonsense.  You're lumping all gun-violence into the relatively small context of premeditated murder with motive.  The gun facilitates it.  Your argument is like saying, "Student aid doesn't increase the number of people who choose to go to school, befcause when someone really WANTS to go to school they will find some way to do it."  But, of course, the easier you make something -- the more accessible you make something -- the more that thing is going to happen.  It is astronomically more difficult to kill someone (especially to kill someone and get away with it) with any of those other weapons you mentioned (knife, gun, rope, bat).

Yeah, because everybody knows how easily knife and rope purchases can be traced back to someone.

When it comes down to it, if I really want you dead, my ability to get a gun isn't going to matter one whit. If I have half a brain and plan the act, I have a better than average chance of getting away with it. The typical criminal in the country gets caught because they're stupid, not because of the weapon they used.
 

...so we're back on need, now?  How do you know you'll never need a rocket-propelled grenade launcher?  What if we are occupied?  They certainly have been useful for Iraqi resistance fighters...  And I thought your side believed that this was about a right to own these weapons, not about a need.

Unless you're purposely lumping us into one big catagory ("you know, THOSE people"), you've got him confused with me. Oh, and for the record, it was someone on the side you're arguing who pulled out the "need" assessment. I merely explained that a "need" basis for our rights was going to leave us somewhat short of rights.

Yes, gun ownership, like everything else in the Bill of Rights , is a right.

Ah...the slippery slope.  Ban assault rifles and what's next?  Forks?  Penicillin?  The problem is, these things don't exist in a vacuum.  We balance their overall effect on society.  Do cars kill people?  Yes.  Do they do anything else that significantly affects our society?  I think maybe they do.  Do guns kill people?  Yes.  Do they serve other, useful purposes?  Sure, of course.  But we "ban" cars all the time.  Some cars are not allowed to be driven on U.S. roads (this amounts to an all-out ban), some people are not allowed to drive cars (very young, very old, blind, etc.).  Cars are required to meet certain safety standards before they can be sold.

Guns are not exactly the same as cars, and consequently, direct comparisons are difficult at best. Unsafe (or defective) guns are handled as most other products (cars being one of the notable exceptions) and are handled as civil matters, in most cases.

As far as the comparison to unqualified drivers goes, we do not allow those with a history of serious mental problems or criminal histories own guns. Like drivers, the young and those who are found to be unable to accept the responcibility to own a gun are stripped of their right to own them. Unforturnately, there is no good way to deturmine who will and will not turn to grime before they do so. Also, those who suffer from mental problems sometimes deveolp these problems over time. (much the same way as people's driving ability declines as they age).

Why should normal, law-abiding citizens have to pay for the actions of others. That's akin to pulling everybody's driving rights at 65, reguardless of their ability.

People, I think, tense up and dig their hills in whenever they hear the words "gun control" when, in fact, they truly do believe in gun control.  But since they automatically switch to defend-to-the-death mode any time someone suggests changes in gun regulation it makes them unable to step outside the box and say, "okay...I do actually believe in regulation.  With that said, maybe I should actually give some thought into what amount of regulation is best instead of obstinately claiming that all gun control is bad."

All gun control is not bad. Some is nessessary. I do have some problem with the assertation that we need more gun control, when we already have loads of it on the books already. Its another over-used phrase, but why not enforce  the laws already on the books, instead of imposing more restrictions on millions of lawful Americans?

I don't think all guns should be banned outright.  Many liberals do, and I think they suffer from the same ideological mental block as the "gun-nuts".  They refuse to actually apply any meaningful analysis to the issue.  One side says, "GUNS KILL," and the other side says, "PEOPLE KILL," and niether one can see the forest for the trees.  Maybe, and I'm just throwing this out, but just maybe it's a little of both.  

I absolutely agree with you here. Well, except for the guns/people kill thing. In the final analysis, the gun is just a tool. No tool does anyhing without some intelligence to operate it.

[shmokes]

And this equates to a 'need' for free speech how?

Tep, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say here.  I was not trying to illustrate a 'need' for freedom of speech, but rather a 'need' for certain abridgements of freedom of speach in spite of the 1st Amendment.  Just the opposite, you see.

Same goes for all the other rights I listed there.  I was simply saying that in spite of the rights "guaranteed" in any of the Amendments, whether the ones that tend to favor the gun nuts (2nd) or the ones that favor the unpatriotic liberal fanatics (1st), there are limits that must be placed.  The references to court cases were simply illustrating some of the limits on various rights that already exits.  And it is a truncated list, to be sure.  

Also, you reiterated what Drew said about, "When it comes down to it, if I really want you dead, my ability to get a gun isn't going to matter..."  Once again, you are talking about premeditated murder with a motive, which accounts for a very small percentage of homocides.  Many people only kinda want someone dead.  Many people really want someone dead, but only for a few moments and after they cool down they're okay.  Many people don't particularly want someone dead, but want to take their money, and in the heat of the moment someone gets shot.  I agree that for the person who sets out on a planned murder the availability of assault rifles is probably not going to be a big concern.  

I know that associating nuclear bombs with 2nd Amendment protection is extreme, but the extreme example is used simply to illustrate how obvious it is to people on both sides of the issue that the 2nd amendment's "right to bare arms" does not prohibit the government entirely from regulating arms.  Once you can reel people in from a purely rhetorical obstinance of spouting, "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment!" a much more useful discussion, and perhaps solution/comprimise might be had.

[Dartful Dodger]

Blah blah blah
I'm afraid of guns
blah blah blah

Gun control is in place like most laws, to protect the stupid from hurting themselves and others.  

More people die from cars, than guns.  Getting hit by a car is deadlier than getting hit by a bullet.  This has been said 100 times before, but you're not listening so I'm saying it again.  Guns do not kill people...

It's not just guns, people are stabbed, strangled, and hit by a cars in moments of rage.  The people afraid of guns only know guns from the horror stories they see.  They will also see more stories about people getting hurt or killed in a car accident, than stories about people driving to their destination unharmed, but since they drive all the time they understand how safe cars can be.

Of course none of this matters because as of now the ban is dead, and I can buy all the guns and magazines I NEED.

What a beautiful sunset that was.

[tep0583]

And this equates to a 'need' for free speech how?

Tep, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say here.  I was not trying to illustrate a 'need' for freedom of speech, but rather a 'need' for certain abridgements of freedom of speach in spite of the 1st Amendment.  Just the opposite, you see.

Same goes for all the other rights I listed there.  I was simply saying that in spite of the rights "guaranteed" in any of the Amendments, whether the ones that tend to favor the gun nuts (2nd) or the ones that favor the unpatriotic liberal fanatics (1st), there are limits that must be placed.  The references to court cases were simply illustrating some of the limits on various rights that already exits.  And it is a truncated list, to be sure.  

Right, but my arguements do not ceter on the needs of people to have these rights. It centers on the notion that these are rights that are granted to us and they sould not be taken for granted.

Limiting people's distance from an abortion clinic does nothing to hinder their freedom of speech. Its more of a public disturbance issue. These people still have the right to protest and the right to say anything they please. They do not, however, have the right to harass people in the process. It s the same thing that keeps PETA from harassing hunters in the woods.

They have the right to free speeh, but they do not have the right to impeede other's rights in the exercise of their rights.

Also, you reiterated what Drew said about, "When it comes down to it, if I really want you dead, my ability to get a gun isn't going to matter..."  Once again, you are talking about premeditated murder with a motive, which accounts for a very small percentage of homocides.  Many people only kinda want someone dead.  Many people really want someone dead, but only for a few moments and after they cool down they're okay.  Many people don't particularly want someone dead, but want to take their money, and in the heat of the moment someone gets shot.  I agree that for the person who sets out on a planned murder the availability of assault rifles is probably not going to be a big concern.

I'd have to argue that the same applies to "heat of the moment" killings as well. The chances that you're going to have as "assult rifle" at the exact moment you decide you "want" to kill somebody has to be very slim. Once you go to get the rifle, it's premeditated. In these cases, the AWB "Ban" would have had no effect on the outcome whatsoever.

If you're arguing against CCW and handguns, I can se where this applies, but I simply cannot make the connection to military-style weapons. You're just not going to go everywhere with one slung on your back.

Robberies are already illegal. Someone who is gong to partake in that act probably isn't too concerned if their "assult rifle" is legal or not. (And, come on, like they'd be robbing someplace if they could afford one, in most cases, anyway)

I know that associating nuclear bombs with 2nd Amendment protection is extreme, but the extreme example is used simply to illustrate how obvious it is to people on both sides of the issue that the 2nd amendment's "right to bare arms" does not prohibit the government entirely from regulating arms.  Once you can reel people in from a purely rhetorical obstinance of spouting, "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment!" a much more useful discussion, and perhaps solution/comprimise might be had.

It DOES prohibit government from regulating anything defined as 'arms' (now genarally accepted to be those weapons defined by US vs. Miller) by the 2nd. It very clearly states that the people's rights to own these sort of weapons "shall not be infringed". Any restrictions to the owenership of these arms counts as "infringement".

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to provide a set of rights to the people that were to be "untouchable" to the government. They were not ment to be tampered with, which is the entire reason they were set down so specifically in the Constuition. I believe any weakening of these rights, even with good intentions, has the potential to weaken tham all. I've comprimised as much as I plan to. I see no use whatsoever in further restrictions, especially when current restrictions seen to be far too great a burden for the legal system. Anything further simply only infringes on the rights of  the law-abiding citizens of this country. That, to me, is very wrong and will not make anyone safer in the slightest way.  

That's my whole problem with "feel-good" legislation. It does nothing to address the real problems and punishes the innocent, everyday, lawful citizen. That leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

[DrewKaree]

Once again, you are talking about premeditated murder with a motive, which accounts for a very small percentage of homocides.

and the argument for this ban continues to focus on "a very small percentage" of weapons and how the end of the ban *use hysterical tone* will increase gun violence and deaths at an alarming rate.

I'm not just talking about premeditated murder.  Just watch several Cops episodes.  You'd almost certainly see an incident of knife violence, and I have seen someone die due to their stab wounds.  Are you telling me the redneck with the blood-stained wife beater planned that?  If that guy was so friggen intelligent, he'd have known that failure to brush his teeth leads to the loss of all his pearly whites (although he can now whistle like a madman through all the openings).

Blah blah blah
I'm afraid of guns
blah blah blah

That's gotta be the most smartass sarcastic and funny thing I've seen that I haven't said myself!  That's so friggen funny, I may show up in IL just to meet a guy as smart-ass as myself.  Good one.

[shmokes]

It DOES prohibit government from regulating anything defined as 'arms' (now genarally accepted to be those weapons defined by US vs. Miller) by the 2nd. It very clearly states that the people's rights to own these sort of weapons "shall not be infringed". Any restrictions to the owenership of these arms counts as "infringement".

This is nonsensical.  If it's stated so "clearly" why do we need U.S. v. Miller to define arms are?  If a bazooka can be defined out of the term "arms" why can other weapons not suffer the same fate?  Are you suggesting that a well regulated militia could not make use of grenades, mines and missile launchers?  How can we provide freedom of the press and still provide fair trials?  How can we support the anti-establishment of religion in public schools, without abridging someones right to free exercise?

It's quaint to think of the Bill of Rights as black & white, but it's simply unworkable.  They should not be tossed about willy-nilly, but they are not as cut-and-dry as you suggest.

Blah blah blah
I'm afraid of guns
blah blah blah
That's gotta be the most smartass sarcastic and funny thing I've seen that I haven't said myself!  That's so friggen funny, I may show up in IL just to meet a guy as smart-ass as myself.  Good one.

You need some sleep, Drew  

[Mameotron]

OK, now I'll jump into the whole Guns don't kill people argument.  I have to say that after carefully reading through this thread I believe that yes, we do need some form of gun control.  We do not need any innefectual "feel good" legislation that only further burdens the legal system.

For example, it is already a law everywhere that you have to be 18 to buy cigarettes.  In my state, the law now says that the PERSON who sells cigarettes to minors, not the establishment, gets fined for doing so.  The responsibility has been placed solely on the cashier.  So why did they just pass a law requiring cashiers to card people who appear to be under the age of 27?  This is worse than just nonsense, it clutters the judicial system and serves no real purpose.

And if you want to get real technical about the guns don't kill issue...

People only pull the trigger, they don't do the killing.  Let them off the hook.  The gun itself does no killing, either.  It just sends the bullet at the person.  It's the BULLET that does the actual killing, so let's make the bullet manufacturer liable for all gun related violence.  After all, guns are useless without the bullets.

That was, of course, an illustration to show how absurd that argument is.  The truth is that people are fully and solely responsible.  But today everybody wants unlimited rights and no responsibility for their actions.  It is this trend that offers us almost no other option but to increase controls.

I am glad the ban expired.  I was never for it in the first place.  I think that it was a meaningless piece of legislation, since everything on the ban could easily and legally be bought at any local gun show.  The prices didn't even go up much, either.

[tep0583]

It DOES prohibit government from regulating anything defined as 'arms' (now genarally accepted to be those weapons defined by US vs. Miller) by the 2nd. It very clearly states that the people's rights to own these sort of weapons "shall not be infringed". Any restrictions to the owenership of these arms counts as "infringement".

This is nonsensical.  If it's stated so "clearly" why do we need U.S. v. Miller to define arms are?  If a bazooka can be defined out of the term "arms" why can other weapons not suffer the same fate?  Are you suggesting that a well regulated militia could not make use of grenades, mines and missile launchers?  How can we provide freedom of the press and still provide fair trials?  How can we support the anti-establishment of religion in public schools, without abridging someones right to free exercise?

I thought it was quite sensical, considering my blood-alcohol level at the time of its writing.

The afore mentioned case defined arms as those weapons issued to your typical "grunt", for lack of better terms. Rocket launchers and the like are not simply handed out to each and every soldier. Only those with special training and jobs are issued such weapons. The same applies to tanks, planes, artillery,even nukes (which really are not issued). Note that, as far as I am aware other issued items , such are gernades are perfectly legal to own, just so long as you can find a source for them (good luck) and can afford their price + the destructive device tax ($200 PER round, as I understand it).

We didn't NEED anthing to define it, until a prosecuter took somebody (Miller) to court over a care pertaining to "arms". The court then clarified their interpertatin of the 2nd's definition of "arms", so that the law would be "clear" in the future.  (This IS my understanding as to the function of the courts.)  

Religion and schools are and easy one. Schools are run by the government and the government is strictly forbidden from establising a "national Religion". Establishing a religion in schools is, in effect, establishing a national religion.

Freedom of the press vs fair trials is covered. You cannot violate the rights of people to have a fair trial for the right to free press. (Just as I cannot use my rght to arm myself to force you to give up your right to not self-incriminate)

It's quaint to think of the Bill of Rights as black & white, but it's simply unworkable.  They should not be tossed about willy-nilly, but they are not as cut-and-dry as you suggest.

Yes, obviously they should be tossed OUT willy-nilly, based on whim, for the "greater good". The Bill of Rights is quite Black & White and was intended to be this way. Take the first, for example, it states you have the right to "peacably assemble". Yelling 'fire' in a crowded building is going to do nothing to enhance the "peacability" of the "gathering" and is thus, not covered by the first. This is the same way criminals are denied the ability to own arms. (felons forfit cirten Constuitional rights) .

Blah blah blah
I'm afraid of guns
blah blah blah
That's gotta be the most smartass sarcastic and funny thing I've seen that I haven't said myself!  That's so friggen funny, I may show up in IL just to meet a guy as smart-ass as myself.  Good one.

You need some sleep, Drew  

[TA Pilot]

I respectfully disagree. Guns do kill people

Of course - thats what they're designed for.
If they could not be used to kill people, they'd be useless, and there;d be no amendment protecting our right to own and use them.



For every story about someone defending him/herself with a gun, there are probably twenty stories about four-year-old girls accidentally killing themselves with guns,

Indeed not.  There are fewer than 1000 accidental gun deaths per year; there are somewhere in the neighborhood og 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year.


That's why there are no guns at my house and my kids aren't allowed to go to anyone's house where there is a gun.

Thats your choice.
Dont presume to make that choice for me.
Also - if you arent teaching your kids how to effectively deal with and safely handle a gun, you;re depriving them of information thats essential to their safety and welfare.


But why anybody other than people who use them in the military would actually want, or should be allowed to own a firearm is beyond me.

Why anyone would want a tatoo is beyond me.
Why anyone would want a pierced nipple is beyond me.
That these things are beyond me isnt an argument against people being able to do these things.


and don't give me that 'it's so we can defend ourselves and our country,and take our country back from an opressive government' crap

The right to arms is all about the people having access to an effective means of defending themselves, individually or collectively, with deadly force.

[TA Pilot]

We do not need any innefectual "feel good" legislation that only further burdens the legal system.

Agree.
We need gun control laws that:
-Keep guns from criminals
-Do not infringe on the right to arms.



 So why did they just pass a law requiring cashiers to card people who appear to be under the age of 27?  This is worse than just nonsense, it clutters the judicial system and serves no real purpose.

Gun dealers are required to "card" gun byuers.


 It's the BULLET that does the actual killing, so let's make the bullet manufacturer liable for all gun related violence.  After all, guns are useless without the bullets.

Guns, bullets, etc, are inanimite.
They are the tool, not the actor.  The actor is the killer, the weapon is the tool with which he killed.


But today everybody wants unlimited rights and no responsibility for their actions.  It is this trend that offers us almost no other option but to increase controls.

Patently false.  No one argues that the right to arms has no boundaries.

[TA Pilot]

This is nonsensical.  If it's stated so "clearly" why do we need U.S. v. Miller to define arms are?

We dont "need" it, we "have" it.  There was a question if a certain weapon was protected by the 2nd, and the court creates a test to see if it (and any other weapon) was an "arm" under the 2nd.


If a bazooka can be defined out of the term "arms" why can other weapons not suffer the same fate?

Soem weapons are outside the scope of the amendment, as per the Miller test.  But, because of the Miller test, some weapons are CLEARLY "arms" under the 2nd.

[fredster]

I found an interesting site to compare stats of crime/murder and a lot of other things between countries.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap

[Lilwolf]

1) Guns don't kill people... people kill people...

but guns help!  Assault guns will help people who want to kill LOTS of people... well... both easier and more efficient.


2) What are assault weapons?

Guns that their only use is to kill people... made for military purposes.   They are slightly limited, but you can convert almost all on the list to fully automatic for less then 100bucks.



My question is this... For a presidant that pretends to want to fight terrorism... Don't these weapons really really help?


I personally think they are fine for most people.  I would love to own a few or just try a few at a gun range.  Would be fun.  But don't fool yourselfs.. I would NEVER take one hunting.  And I would NEVER use one for defense of my house (because the sound of a shotgun cocking is MUCH more impressive to get people to run out of your house.  They don't have any use other then for fun...

but they have a LOT of bad uses... that we should probably keep out of the hands (at a cheap price anyway).

I think we should just have a 5k tax on EVERY sale for assault weapons.  (even selling your current one to another person).    I personally think drug lords should be able to have them... Mainly because Miami Vice always had them, and I like to think my memories are real... even from TV.

I just want to make sure that the local drugdealer can't afford them... And the local dealer to the dealer can't afford more then one.

[Dartful Dodger]

You are all making very good points and I've spent hours thinking about your views.


But seriously, does anyone know when Benelli will start selling their assault shot guns with collapsible stocks?

The Benelli web page is still saying:
^{Note: Civilian metal stocks are not collapsible.}

The ban has expired people, I NEED my toys.

[TA Pilot]

but guns help!  Assault guns will help people who want to kill LOTS of people... well... both easier and more efficient.

Given that the right to arms is all about the people having the means to kill other people, this means these weapons are exactly the sort of thing the 2nd protects.


Guns that their only use is to kill people... made for military purposes

If thats the case, why arent they used by any military anywhere?


They are slightly limited, but you can convert almost all on the list to fully automatic for less then 100bucks.

You cannot....  and if you did, you'd break federal law and commit a felony.


My question is this... For a presidant that pretends to want to fight terrorism... Don't these weapons really really help?

Help who?  the terrorists?
The guys that blow up buildings?


I would NEVER take one hunting

Why?  My M-14 is an excellent deer rifle.


And I would NEVER use one for defense of my house (because the sound of a shotgun cocking is MUCH more impressive to get people to run out of your house.

This is too many movies and too little experience talking.


I just want to make sure that the local drugdealer can't afford them... And the local dealer to the dealer can't afford more then one.

Drug dealers dont get their weapons from gun dealers.

[shmokes]

It DOES prohibit government from regulating anything defined as 'arms' (now genarally accepted to be those weapons defined by US vs. Miller) by the 2nd. It very clearly states that the people's rights to own these sort of weapons "shall not be infringed". Any restrictions to the owenership of these arms counts as "infringement".

We didn't NEED anthing to define it, until a prosecuter took somebody (Miller) to court over a care pertaining to "arms". The court then clarified their interpertatin of the 2nd's definition of "arms", so that the law would be "clear" in the future.  (This IS my understanding as to the function of the courts.)  

Religion and schools are and easy one. Schools are run by the government and the government is strictly forbidden from establising a "national Religion". Establishing a religion in schools is, in effect, establishing a national religion.

Freedom of the press vs fair trials is covered. You cannot violate the rights of people to have a fair trial for the right to free press. (Just as I cannot use my rght to arm myself to force you to give up your right to not self-incriminate)

It's quaint to think of the Bill of Rights as black & white, but it's simply unworkable.  They should not be tossed about willy-nilly, but they are not as cut-and-dry as you suggest.

Yes, obviously they should be tossed OUT willy-nilly, based on whim, for the "greater good". The Bill of Rights is quite Black & White and was intended to be this way. Take the first, for example, it states you have the right to "peacably assemble". Yelling 'fire' in a crowded building is going to do nothing to enhance the "peacability" of the "gathering" and is thus, not covered by the first. This is the same way criminals are denied the ability to own arms. (felons forfit cirten Constuitional rights) .

Tep, I don't even know where to begin with this    Half of my questions you answered were rhetorical, lol.  My point of listing all those exceptions to rights that are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights was not a challenge to see if you could actually come up with the justification for those exceptions, it was simply to illustrate that there ARE exceptions. ... oh for crying out loud, this is retarded.

[hunky_artist]

ok, there are lots of 'for' arguments here... all saying guns dont kill people, and that if you wanted to kill someone you would.. whatever the weapon...

... so if that's true you shouldn't have any higher a percentage of murders in your country than anywhere else, right?

how come The States then has more murders per year for the population, than most countries out there?

and I'm including countries that have guns,  not just the ones that dont.

It is infinitly easier to shoot someone, than to physically plunge a knife in them, or kill them with your bare hands. The more removed from the victim you can be the easier it is. Especially for silly things like jilted lovers... where usuallly the worst that would happen without a gun is that they might get beat up.

[fredster]

Well, yeah, maybe.  The US is no. 24 on the list actually.  Columbia is the leader. Russia is way up on the list.  The UK is No. 46.  

Check here:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Per capita murders anyway.

[RacerX]

ok, there are lots of 'for' arguments here... all saying guns dont kill people, and that if you wanted to kill someone you would.. whatever the weapon...

... so if that's true you shouldn't have any higher a percentage of murders in your country than anywhere else, right?

That might be true, ceteris paribus, but the fact that guns are legal here is not the only factor involved.  So your assertion is flawed.

[DrewKaree]

ok, there are lots of 'for' arguments here... all saying guns dont kill people, and that if you wanted to kill someone you would.. whatever the weapon...

... so if that's true you shouldn't have any higher a percentage of murders in your country than anywhere else, right?

I'm not saying I did anything more than a cursory look into it, but perhaps you should take a look at the site fredster posted.  There's SO much more evidence out there you will come across if you simply take your blinders off and set your bias aside.  This guy started where you probably are, and through some research, saw where his theory was leading, and had the intestinal fortitude to change his mind based on the facts he could find.

how come The States then has more murders per year for the population, than most countries out there?

Your use of vague terms that gloss over or misdirect the reader speaks to your bias.  Your argument is that we have more MURDERS per year than MOST countries.  It's clearly not GUN-related murders, or you'd be crowing that from the highest peak, and even allowing for all murders, you still can't say we're tops in murder.  Your attempt to lump your statement into this weapons ban argument is feeble at best.

It is infinitly easier to shoot someone, than to physically plunge a knife in them, or kill them with your bare hands. The more removed from the victim you can be the easier it is. Especially for silly things like jilted lovers... where usuallly the worst that would happen without a gun is that they might get beat up.

After doing a bit more than just a cursory look into it the BBC, of all people (that's over in England, home of one of the "more prohibitively gun control" nations   )show how well a ban on weapons works.

Also, yet again, your "stand" against guns and your reasoning falls back on a term like "usually".  That's solid ground on which to base a position if ever I heard it. Your example also isn't one of those "premeditated" crimes being bandied about, so let's think about it:  If there were no gun in the house of a jilted lover (due to this "ban" that most likely wouldn't apply to your example) you think he would give that beating, rather than getting a knife from the kitchen (unless you think that anyone who wouldn't allow guns in the house also wouldn't allow knives) and comitting the same murder?  After all, It is infinitly easier to shoot someone, than to physically plunge a knife in them, or kill them with your bare hands, so making it harder for them to kill would stop this crime???  

You can't go through life with your head in the sand.  

1) you'll asphyxiate yourself
2) eventually, they'll dig a hole and put the facts down there
3) you can't find the polls to vo...nevermind...you'll be safe down there.

[MasTequila]

I do not own a gun but I do see it as ok for everyone else too.  I think it is important that they be handled correctly and with proper precautions.  I have never heard a story where the parents of a child that got killed by a gun said that child unlocked the gun and the ammo, then loaded it and shot it and killed themselves or another.

As many have stated it is a constiutional right and it is not outdated it is about responisbility.  

~Mas

P.S. While not having owned a gun I have shot both a 9mm pistol and a M-16 at Quantico (sp?) when I was a sophomore in highschool.

[Mameotron]

They are slightly limited, but you can convert almost all on the list to fully automatic for less then 100bucks.

You cannot....  and if you did, you'd break federal law and commit a felony.

You are completely wrong.

If you have a basic knowledge of how an AR-15 works you can see how simple it is to convert it to full auto.  It could easily be done at home with basic tools, but as you pointed out, that would be illegal.

Theoretically speaking, it takes less than 5 minutes to swap out the parts and convert it back to semi.

It is very easy to find out how to do this.  Ask around at a gun show, talk to a few ex-military people, surf the net (I haven't done that, but it HAS to be posted somewhere).

[Mameotron]

We do not need any innefectual "feel good" legislation that only further burdens the legal system.

Agree.
We need gun control laws that:
-Keep guns from criminals
-Do not infringe on the right to arms.

The trick here is to figure out how to do this.  Criminals, by nature and by definition, tend to disobey laws.  We already have laws established.  I once worked with a guy who spent time in prison for armed robbery.  He is not allowed to own any kind of gun, ever again.  He still carries one.

 So why did they just pass a law requiring cashiers to card people who appear to be under the age of 27?  This is worse than just nonsense, it clutters the judicial system and serves no real purpose.

Gun dealers are required to "card" gun byuers.

You completely missed my point.  There is already too much redundant legislation, and we don't need any more.
There is a law saying you can't sell tobacco to anyone under the age of 18.  Why add another law that says you must check if they appear to be under 27?  That is completely useless and redundant.

 It's the BULLET that does the actual killing, so let's make the bullet manufacturer liable for all gun related violence.  After all, guns are useless without the bullets.

Guns, bullets, etc, are inanimite.
They are the tool, not the actor.  The actor is the killer, the weapon is the tool with which he killed.

Did you read the post you're quoting from?  In the very next paragraph I explained that this statement was an illustration of how silly that argument is.

But today everybody wants unlimited rights and no responsibility for their actions.  It is this trend that offers us almost no other option but to increase controls.

Patently false.  No one argues that the right to arms has no boundaries.

Once again you have missed the point.  I am using illustrations outside the gun control issue.  This refers to the general attitude people have today.  DrewKaree has started a thread addressing this very issue, using Dan Rather and the CBS News as a fine example (mainstream media "Rather" biased).

[fredster]

I can see the point about jilted lovers shooting each other.  However, a lot of these murders we see are very violent.  If there was a breakdown I'd say that (and I'm speculating) that most were done with bare hands.

I once got in a lot of trouble watching TV.  My wife and her sister were with me and a news story came on about a man that stabbed his wife 17 times.

I said "wow, ONLY 17 times? he must have been tired"

At that point I was attacked.
(those of you married can related to that one).

[abrannan]

I'm honestly not trying to make a point with this post, but does anyone have stastics on the number of assault rifle homocides/suicides/accidental deaths that were committed with a legally obtained assault rifle vs. those that were stolen/illegally obtained?  Or even those stats for any type of firearm?  Are those stats even tracked?  

[Dartful Dodger]

how come The States then has more murders per year for the population, than most countries out there?

According to that murder page, South Africa is number 2.
Hunky_artist doesn't your country control South Africa?

Doesn't your country also believe strict gun control laws?

Very interesting indeed.

Now a more important question.

Why is Benelli still refusing to sell American civilians collapsible stocks?!?!

[TA Pilot]

If you have a basic knowledge of how an AR-15 works you can see how simple it is to convert it to full auto.  It could easily be done at home with basic tools, but as you pointed out, that would be illegal.


Thats funny, because I have --intircate-- knowledge of the AR-15 and I KNOW it cant be done as you suggest.

You CAN geta full atuo sear and trigger group, but this requires the lowe receiver to be machined to accept it.   Somethign that you;re not going to do with hand tools.