Gun control

[Wolseley]

This is where we are headed because we have already given up part of our 2nd amendment right.
» Democrat Official Admits Plan To Confiscate Guns Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Okay, they want me to register my guns? That's fine. They want to put me on a database as being a weapon owner? That's fine, too. They want to know how many weapons I have have as a prelude to confiscation? Okay, that's fine as well; I have no problem with that.

They won't get them, but I'll be happy to play along.

Bottom line is, I won't give my weapons to anybody. They'll have to buy them from me, and it won't be cheap. They'll gain possesion of them in the end, when they take me down----but I'll be talking several of them with me when I go.

 

[A2SG]

No, and a 'well regulated militia' isn't even a condition of arms ownership.

No, it isn't. On the other hand, well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free state, according to the Second Amendment, so it does beg the question: why not?

Members of a not-very-well regulated militia would still have the right to keep and bear arms. As ambiguous as the amendment seems the 'right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' part is not. The amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Obligations.

Well, ambiguities do tend to happen when you ignore half of the text.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It seems to me, if I were to read that as it was written, it does seem to imply that gun ownership should be contingent upon membership in a well regulated militia of some sort.

-- A2SG, but hey, that's just one guy's interpretation, right?

 

[Blackguard_]

It seems to me, if I were to read that as it was written, it does seem to imply that gun ownership should be contingent upon membership in a well regulated militia of some sort.

It protects the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the militia.

The purpose was to help ensure the militia couldn't be disarmed by protecting the right of the population at large, the people, to keep and bear arms.

Article 1. Section 8 of the Constitution already gave Congress the power to provide for arming and discipling(what the "well-regulated" of the 2nd amendment actually refers to) the militia.

Remember how the War of Independence started, Redcoats sent by a military governor to confiscate munitions of the militias loyal to the officially disbanded Mass. legislature.

 

[A2SG]

Why? We managed to survive for hundreds of years before we made people get a background check to buy a gun.

And look where it got us: over 61 mass murders since 1982, committed with guns, most of which were bought legally.

We, as a society, have to be able to do something about that.

Any evidence that those are FFL dealers?

Nope. But the point remains, it's possible for people who cannot pass a background check to legally buy a gun. That shouldn't happen.

It's already against the law to do that. So, why not enforce the existing law?

Because it's not against the law. There is a loophole, and roughly 40% of legal gun sales pass through it.

But I'm all for enforcing existing laws. Tell your republican friends to tell their Senate representatives to confirm a head for the ATF now.

Why not?

Because I have no comment to make.

I probably shouldn't call it black market sales. It's perfectly legal.

How 'bout them Red Sox, huh?

So who's advocating denying people an effective means to defend themselves?

You are, as a matter of fact.

Nope.

Feel free to go back and check everything I've written on the subject, you'll find your mistake easily enough.

I still cannot accept arming first grade teachers as a sane solution, no matter how many westerns some people watched as kids.

Why can't you accept it?

Besides it being pretty self-evident, I'm a parent.

I merely want to offer those who are so inclined the option of arming themselves, as is available to them when they're not on school grounds, in many states. Or, in the case of Vermont, where these people don't need a permit from the government. Anyone can go to Vermont and strap a gun on, and wander around the streets.

So?

You seem to be under the impression I oppose gun ownership in general. You're mistaken.

Allowing people the means of self defense is not irrational.

Who said it was? And for that matter, who is advocating disallowing people the means to defend themselves?

You seem to be under the impression I have. You're wrong. If you want to continue to discuss this issue with me, I suggest you familiarize yourself with what I've actually said. It tends to help.

There's still only 800,000 or so police officers in the United States. Somewhere around 10% of them are various forms of border agents, which leaves 700,000 or so.

Your point being...?

And yes, I go. Which means you tie down more than one police officer, if you were to put a police detail at every school. That's probably more police officers than there are on duty in the United States at any one time. Seems like a rational response, to me. LOL.

I'm not sure how practical it is, but as I said, I'd prefer that solution to the idea of arming teachers, to be honest.

You and I truly do not live in the same reality.

Why not? If you allow teachers the option of receiving training and carrying a firearm on school grounds (the same thing they're allowed to do when they're not on school grounds) that's less costly than paying $80-100k a year to park a cop there.

I'm sorry, but the idea of armed teachers is just plain, flat out insane. If you think that's a rational idea, then, as I said, you and I truly do not live in the same reality.

All of which have uses that don't involve killing.
That cannot be said for a gun.

So then why do the police have guns?

Um, because sometimes, in the course of their duty, they need them. And yes, that does mean occasionally they kill with them.

Almost half of those shooting were in so called "Gun Free Zones." (Schools.)

Which only goes to show that declaring something a "gun free zone" is more symbolic than anything else.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean schools should become the OK Corral either.

That's a definite argument that a law banning the possession of firearms works.

Either you're being sarcastic, or you didn't type that correctly.

-- A2SG, just to be clear, in case there's a misunderstanding somewhere along the line, there is no law being proposed that bans the possession of all firearms....just so you know.....

 

[A2SG]

....They'll gain possesion of them in the end, when they take me down----but I'll be talking several of them with me when I go.

You do realize that it's language like that which makes people unclear on the difference between a gun owner and a gun nut, right?

-- A2SG, just sayin'....

 

[Wolseley]

You do realize that it's language like that which makes people unclear on the difference between a gun owner and a gun nut, right?

-- A2SG, just sayin'....

Life's a beach, isn't it? If they're going to label me a gun nut on the basis of a comment on a message board, I suspect they'll need a lot more evidence before they go to court.

Besides, the United States government has already classified me as a domestic terrorist, so why should I worry about being classified as a gun nut, to boot?

The Department of Homeland Security report was issued on 7 APR 09; there was also another report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) on 20 FEB 09; both of them recieved wide circulation, and the DHS document drew on the MIAC document for information about "rightwing extremists", which it repeats, over and over and over again, like some sort of mantra. You can read both of them in their entirety here:
http://www.wnd.com/images/dhs-rightwing-extremism.pdf
The Modern Militia Movement-Missouri MIAC Strategic Report 20Feb09

And below, excerpts which earned me (and millions of others), the designation.

I am a military veteran:

"DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today." (DHS)

I am a Christian:

"Members of the miltia movement often subscribe to the ideology of other right-wing extremist movements, such as: Christian Identity: Religious ideology popular in right-wing circles." (MIAC) (The report then goes on to list a bunch of racist nonsense that no legitimate Christian esposes, but which the report apparently figures "right-wing extremists" do.

I opposed the stimulus (because I think we're on the verge of economic disaster, and Obama and Crew just keep on a-spending):

"Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures....Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and corporations as a part of subversion strategy."(DHS)

"Many militia organizations feel that the US government will fall due to economic or racial issues. They believe [this will lead to] martial law, confiscation of firearms, and imprisonment of citizens." (MIAC)

I support 3rd party candidiates:

"Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former presidential candidates: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr." (MIAC)

There's a lot of other stuff in there which also tags me as a "right-wing extremist" and a "potential domestic terrorist"---I oppose gun control; I oppose NAFTA; I support border security and oppose illegal immigration; I think Barack Obama is at best a bumbling idiot and at worst a traitorous commie subversive, and one of the worst disasters that ever hit this country; and I fly a Gadsden Flag, which I will continue to do until Obama leaves office.

Ooh-rah.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And look where it got us: over 61 mass murders since 1982, committed with guns, most of which were bought legally.

We, as a society, have to be able to do something about that.

I read your link. Cunningly written but doesn't fool me.

 

[Anovah]

No, I am asking you to prove that an assault weapons ban would have a significant impact on reducing gun related homicide.

Are you familiar with this study?

Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter?

 

[Anovah]

It protects the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the militia.

The purpose was to help ensure the militia couldn't be disarmed by protecting the right of the population at large, the people, to keep and bear arms.

Article 1. Section 8 of the Constitution already gave Congress the power to provide for arming and discipling(what the "well-regulated" of the 2nd amendment actually refers to) the militia.

Remember how the War of Independence started, Redcoats sent by a military governor to confiscate munitions of the militias loyal to the officially disbanded Mass. legislature.

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite"

 

[tulc]

If people were REALLY serious about taking a bite out of crime I'd think they'd ONLY allow people to own "assault rifles" and ban all hand guns instead.
tulc(throws out hand grenade and then waits for explosion in 3...2...and ...)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite"

Even without a 'plan' a citizenry that is familiar and proficient with firearms through the exercise of private ownership and use is excellent preparation for future militia duty.

 

[stamperben]

Even without a 'plan' a citizenry that is familiar and proficient with firearms through the exercise of private ownership and use is excellent preparation for future militia duty.

In order to ensure that the citizenry is in fact familiar and profiecient with fire arms, it seems to me to be somewhat regulatory in nature. I want to see the list of those who have had that training.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Are you familiar with this study?

Did the federal ban on assault weapons matter?

Wow, really?

Ok, let's look at this a little bit (won't take much):

X-Axis: Year
Y-Axis: Targets in Mass Shootings

Now, what in the world does the data in that graph - specifically "Targets" have to do with anything - let alone assault weapons?

Also - what is a "target?" And can we assume the graph could spike to 40,000 or 50,000 were those homicidal bombers in Boston armed with something other than bombs?

Finally, do you have any idea what type of weapons were used, predominantly, in mass shootings - particularly of late? (Hint: they weren't so-called "assault" weapons).

Sandy Hook - no "assault" weapons used
Columbine - no "assault" weapons used
VA Tech - no "assault" weapons used
Tuscon - no "assault" weapons used
Norway - no "assault" weapons used

And since we're sharing "data" - perhaps you could explain this data: Crime in the United States, which shows that since 1992 (before the "assault" weapons ban, if that persists to be of any relevance to anyone), the violent crime rate in the US has HALVED, while our population has grown over 20%?

So I'm wondering precisely why, if assault weapons weren't used in ANY of the major recent mass murders, why assault weapons are being demonized as they are, and why we're talking about re-instituting an assault weapons ban and being regaled with nonsensical charts like the above that have the added words "assault weapons ban" attached to them?

Why? Because "assault" weapons look scary?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

In order to ensure that the citizenry is in fact familiar and profiecient with fire arms, it seems to me to be somewhat regulatory in nature. I want to see the list of those who have had that training.

The list is there (whether available I don't know). Anyone who took a hunter's safety course or a handgun safety course has been recorded.

Of course we can benefit from formal training, especially handling weapons safely in a military formation. As a former soldier I still use my training whether hunting alone or with friends. There are millions of vets that are fully trained in weapons use and safety.

On a personal note I have reprimanded others for their careless handling of firearms while hunting. Thankfully they took it seriously with no hard feelings. One guy in our party told me he was glad I said something because this one fellow made him nervous the way he handled his rifle. The problem was that this guy had never hunted before and never owned a gun of any kind and so was unfamiliar with both it's use and safety. We didn't know that until we witnessed some really dangerous handling of the gun by him. He was the brother of the fellow who owned the farm we were hunting on, so no one wanted to jack him up about it.

 

[stamperben]

The list is there (whether available I don't know). Anyone who took a hunter's safety course or a handgun safety course has been recorded.

Well good! We seem to be half way to registration then, since the list is already there, eh?

 

[Glas Ridire]

In order to ensure that the citizenry is in fact familiar and profiecient with

Whoa, whoa, whoa. . . it isn't the government's business to ensure that. When was the last time the state came into your home to check to see if you were familiar and proficient with your fire extinguishers? Has the State been in to check your smoke detectors? Firearms are a personal defensive tool, it is on the owner to ensure they are familiar and proficient. For some that is a CCW class for others a tactical carbine refresher, for others just remembering what they did in the war and going hunting is enough. It is a very personal choice, but it is a personal one . . . not the government's business.

fire arms, it seems to me to be somewhat regulatory in nature. I want to see the list of those who have had that training.

Not your business. I want to see a list of democrat's prescription med costs broken down by individual (not which med as that is HIPPA protected) but ya know what? It is none of my business. I have the good sense to recognize that.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well good! We seem to be half way to registration then, since the list is already there, eh?

Registration isn't necessary as the government already knows who has guns. Formal gun sales, carry permits, and hunting license sales produce a pretty thorough record.

Registration would be a way to 'round up' all gun owners and make them 'pass under the rod'.

 

[stamperben]

Not my business? It sure is my business if a person three doors down is a gun owner but has never handled or had training on that weapon. Kinda like that inexperienced hunter that the oldwiseguy went hunting with. HE was nervous, just as I am. What's the problem with showing me your papers?

 

[stamperben]

Registration isn't necessary as the government already knows who has guns. Formal gun sales, carry permits, and hunting license sales produce a pretty thorough record.

Registration would be a way to 'round up' all gun owners and make them 'pass under the rod'.

When are you people going to come into reality? NO ONE is out to confiscate your weapons!

[edit to add]
And if they do I'll be out there with what I've got to protect the right to own them.

 

[Glas Ridire]

Not my business? . .. . .. What's the problem with showing me your papers?

What is the problem with a warrant-less search of your home to check your fire safety equipment? Your home catching on fire and you not having the knowledge and equipment to deal with it could spread fire to your neighbors!