***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (6 Viewers)

[jurb26]

If you want to put guns in schools, why not increase funding for the police and have them cycle from school to school? It makes no sense to arm the administrators.

Why not just increaase tax on gun sales/manufactures and use that money to fund protection programs. If people what their guns, let them pay or help pay for solutions.

 

[Apes with Guns]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

 

[bostonfred]

Guns are ALWAYS a threat. It's what they are. http://www.dshs.wa.gov/pdf/ca/gunsafe.pdfFirearm Deaths:- Every seven and a half hours a child or teen is killed by a gun by either accident or suicide.- From 1995 to 2000 an average of 4 to 5 children died every day in non homicide firearm incidents.- From 1995 to 2000, more than 1,790 children were killed in firearm accidents.- In each of the last 10 years an average of 1,323 kids committed suicide with a firearm; 155 were under 15 years of age.Firearm Injuries:- In 2001, there were 14,571 kids injured by a firearm.- In 2001, 13,572 kids were injured by BB/pellet guns.Firearm Ownership:- 40% of American households have guns- 34% of children in American homes live in homes with at least one firearmStorage Practices:- Among homes with children and firearms- 28% do not always keep guns locked in a secure place- 25% only "occasionally" lock and store the bullets separate from the gun- 48% do not regularly make sure that guns are equipped with child safety and trigger locks- In 30% of hand gun owning homes, the gun was stored unlocked and loaded at the time of the surveyAccessibility:- In 72% of unintentional deaths and injuries, suicide and suicide attempts, the firearm was stored in the residence of the victim- 47% of high school kids and 22% of middle school kids said they could get a gun- 6% of high school kids said they had carried a gun to school within the last 30 days- 72% of parents think their kids would not handle a gun without their permission.

Said the guy named glock

 

[RCon]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

you aren't going to win this one. They are coming from an emotional, irrational vantage point, and rational arguments aren't going to work here. It's like debating with a woman.

The fact that you don't agree doesn't make the position irrational.

The position of "law enforcement with guns around my kids is OK, but civilians with training and certifications equivalent to law enforcement with guns around my kids is not OK" is irrational. And that was timschochet's most recent position on this.

 

[Snotbubbles]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

you aren't going to win this one. They are coming from an emotional, irrational vantage point, and rational arguments aren't going to work here. It's like debating with a woman.

Is it any less rational of a viewpoint than that of those living in fear to the extent that the only way they feel safe is to carry a gun?

This is like saying that you live in fear of your house burning down unless you have a fire extinguisher on hand. Is anyone seriously experiencing fear if they don't have one? No, probably not. But it's nice to be prepared, so responsible people keep one in the house.But I know that it feels good to say that the other side is "living in fear" and that it makes them seem irrational, so I do understand your choice of words here.

Not a good analogy since the thing that protects you (a gun) is also the thing that you need protection from (a gun). In your analogy the thing that protects you (a fire extinguisher) is different from the thing you are fearful of (fire).EDIT: Actually the analogy could work if the fire extinguishers were the cause of all house fires. But then, it would make little sense to put more fire extinguishers into your house to protect you from a fire extinguisher that could potentially harm you.

 

[Glass Joe]

You know where there is a really low likelihood of people getting shot? Where there are no guns. Crazy thought, I know.

So how do we get these guns out of the bad guys hands?Simply saying do away with them is not the answer.

Make all private citizens turn them in - legally. Make ridiculous penalties for having a gun after that time. Shut down sales. Essentially choke off the industry.No it won't ever rid the country of them. But it definitely will make them harder to get.

This may very well cause another civil war. Furthermore, it's highly unconstitutional.

Well - yes, it would require a repeal of the second amendment.But regardless of some people's fascination and obsession with weapons, we shouldn't consider peoples reaction when making them.

 

[tom22406]

You know where there is a really low likelihood of people getting shot? Where there are no guns. Crazy thought, I know.

So how do we get these guns out of the bad guys hands?Simply saying do away with them is not the answer.

Having fewer of them around would be a start. Making it more challenging for new bad guys on the scene to get would be a start. It will take a long time, but it's kinda important, so it's worth putting in the time.

I will wait to see what list Biden rolls out before I make any conclusion as to whether this will work or not.The list will tell me everything as to whether they are serious or not.My gut says he will offer up a similar Assault Weapons ban that was in place before and limit magazine clip capacity to a certain number(lower).

 

[RCon]

National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre blamed Hollywood, video games music, the courts and more on Friday for creating a culture of violence in the United States.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said at a Washington press event, adding, “With all the money in the federal budget can’t we afford to put a police officer in every single school?”

These guys seriously believe that?

Maybe you can teach me something here. What else stops a bad guy with a gun? Kind words and an easy smile? Or were you thinking more along the lines of nonlethal force?Speaking of which - what if we gave teachers Tasers instead of guns? Would that be a fair compromise here?

Just seems to be a myopic view of the problem.

That didn't exactly answer the question "What stops a bad guy with a gun?"

 

[Glass Joe]

You know where there is a really low likelihood of people getting shot? Where there are no guns. Crazy thought, I know.

So how do we get these guns out of the bad guys hands?Simply saying do away with them is not the answer.

Make all private citizens turn them in - legally.

Would the government pay the citizens for their guns or just take'em? Some people have thousands of dollars worth of guns. What would the government do with all the guns? Destroy them?

Oh, no doubt people would have to be reimbursed, appropriately. And when they're turned in, yes, they'd be destroyed, or given to our military and law enforcement, as appropriate.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

We just need to go around breaking the legs on all the deer to compensate.

 

[Gr00vus]

You know where there is a really low likelihood of people getting shot? Where there are no guns. Crazy thought, I know.

So how do we get these guns out of the bad guys hands?Simply saying do away with them is not the answer.

Make all private citizens turn them in - legally.

Would the government pay the citizens for their guns or just take'em? Some people have thousands of dollars worth of guns. What would the government do with all the guns? Destroy them?

I think you'd have to have a gradual sunset period. Something like a gun owner's guns would be collected at their death - they couldn't be inherited, sold, transferred, etc.People think there's going to be an overnight solution here. There isn't. Too much short term thinking happening right now.NPR had an interesting piece last night on the demographics of gun ownership and sales. Stats seem to indicate that the demographic for gun ownership/purchase is really aging. Sales have spiked recently (particularly for things like the AR-15) because those who do like to own guns are putting a run on them to beat whatever legislation happens to curtail gun availability. But at this point it looks like a decreasing proportion of the population will be gun buyers going forward (according to this piece).

 

[bostonfred]

If you want to put guns in schools, why not increase funding for the police and have them cycle from school to school? It makes no sense to arm the administrators.

Why not just increaase tax on gun sales/manufactures and use that money to fund protection programs. If people what their guns, let them pay or help pay for solutions.

That seems reasonable. Id be interested in hearing the counterargument.

 

[jurb26]

But regardless of some people's fascination and obsession with weapons, we shouldn't consider peoples reaction when making them.

This is a ridiculous statement. We shouldn't consider their view because it opposses ours?

 

[moleculo]

If you want to put guns in schools, why not increase funding for the police and have them cycle from school to school? It makes no sense to arm the administrators.

Why not just increaase tax on gun sales/manufactures and use that money to fund protection programs. If people what their guns, let them pay or help pay for solutions.

That seems reasonable. Id be interested in hearing the counterargument.

I'd support this.

 

[glock]

Guns are ALWAYS a threat. It's what they are.

http://www.dshs.wa.g.../ca/gunsafe.pdf

Firearm Deaths:

- Every seven and a half hours a child or teen is killed by a gun by either accident or suicide.

- From 1995 to 2000 an average of 4 to 5 children died every day in non homicide firearm incidents.

- From 1995 to 2000, more than 1,790 children were killed in firearm accidents.

- In each of the last 10 years an average of 1,323 kids committed suicide with a firearm; 155 were under 15 years of age.

Firearm Injuries:

- In 2001, there were 14,571 kids injured by a firearm.

- In 2001, 13,572 kids were injured by BB/pellet guns.

Firearm Ownership:

- 40% of American households have guns

- 34% of children in American homes live in homes with at least one firearm

Storage Practices:

- Among homes with children and firearms

- 28% do not always keep guns locked in a secure place

- 25% only "occasionally" lock and store the bullets separate from the gun

- 48% do not regularly make sure that guns are equipped with child safety and trigger locks

- In 30% of hand gun owning homes, the gun was stored unlocked and loaded at the time of the survey

Accessibility:

- In 72% of unintentional deaths and injuries, suicide and suicide attempts, the firearm was stored in the residence of the victim

- 47% of high school kids and 22% of middle school kids said they could get a gun

- 6% of high school kids said they had carried a gun to school within the last 30 days

- 72% of parents think their kids would not handle a gun without their permission.

Said the guy named glock

Oh, the irony...

 

[dozer]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

you aren't going to win this one. They are coming from an emotional, irrational vantage point, and rational arguments aren't going to work here. It's like debating with a woman.

The fact that you don't agree doesn't make the position irrational.

I haven't heard a single argument against limited number of qualified, thoroughly trained, and vetted school officials maintain properly secured and concealed weapons on campus.All we hear is a repeated "I just don't want guns around children" or "guns make me feel icky" or "won't someone think of the children?" or "I don't want my teacher putting a gun to her ear while she is learning cursive."

I don't want some school administrator deciding on the fly what situations warrant them pulling and discharging their weapon around a bunch of kids. Not every case is going to be as clear cut as this school shooting and mistakes will be made.I would also worry that a situation which could be resolved without violence being escalated into a shoot out by an over zealous armed administrator.I want law enforcement professionals making these types of decisions. No matter how much training these school officials will receive, it won't be as much as a police officer.Just my two cents.

...and for today's professional development we'll be focusing on reporting math score data to the department of education, helping new teachers with classroom management, upgrading the speech pathology department, taking down an active shooter with one shot, and how to set up a secret Santa in your school.Making the assumption that school leaders are the best ones to be armed in school is a mistake.

 

[Don Quixote]

I'd like to see how it would work out in Universities first where students are old enough to understand and parents may not be as concerned as a parent of an elementary school parent.

Doesn't just about every university have a campus police now? I thought most carried arms too, but that may vary by state and school.

Large universities, yes, but it did not help VTech. Don't know what the campus police were able to carry etc. at the time of the shooting.

You are right that it did not help them there; I just wasn't sure if you were suggesting something different from what is already done.And I wasn't trying to argue against gun control, as I do support it. I fall more into the view that the debate is kind of pointless, since we can both legislate gun control and improve school security, as they are not mutually exclusive ideas.

 

[Gr00vus]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

I know. Personally I think we're at a point in our development that that hobby could go by the wayside, but I know that's just my view. So I thought about this a bit. How about we only allow hunting firearms to be rented to hunters by government agents at parks/reserves set up to allow hunting? Or perhaps you could still own your own rifles, but they'd have to be kept in lockers at such locations? Yes I realize it's opening up a loophole whereby crazy guy could drive out to the park pick up a rifle and bring it back to wherever to commit murder, but it makes it a lot tougher to do. You could also embed rfid in the guns somewhere and maybe have alarm/notification if they're taken outside a defined area or tampered with?

 

[jurb26]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

I know. Personally I think we're at a point in our development that that hobby could go by the wayside, but I know that's just my view. So I thought about this a bit. How about we only allow hunting firearms to be rented to hunters by government agents at parks/reserves set up to allow hunting? Or perhaps you could still own your own rifles, but they'd have to be kept in lockers at such locations? Yes I realize it's opening up a loophole whereby crazy guy could drive out to the park pick up a rifle and bring it back to wherever to commit murder, but it makes it a lot tougher to do. You could also embed rfid in the guns somewhere and maybe have alarm/notification if they're taken outside a defined area or tampered with?

This assumes that people who own or highly support gun ownership are most concerned with hunting. I do not believe that to be the case. From my experience, these people are most concerned with personal protection from society and government.

 

[Burton]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.

The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.

And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.

We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

 

[Gr00vus]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

I know. Personally I think we're at a point in our development that that hobby could go by the wayside, but I know that's just my view. So I thought about this a bit. How about we only allow hunting firearms to be rented to hunters by government agents at parks/reserves set up to allow hunting? Or perhaps you could still own your own rifles, but they'd have to be kept in lockers at such locations? Yes I realize it's opening up a loophole whereby crazy guy could drive out to the park pick up a rifle and bring it back to wherever to commit murder, but it makes it a lot tougher to do. You could also embed rfid in the guns somewhere and maybe have alarm/notification if they're taken outside a defined area or tampered with?

This assumes that people who own or highly support gun ownership are most concerned with hunting. I do not believe that to be the case. From my experience, these people are most concerned with personal protection from society and government.

I was only addressing the hunting question.For the rest, what I'd suggest is a ban on all rifles and anything more automated than a manual load revolver, 6 cartridge capacity maximum, 1 gun per adult maximum.

 

[ATC1]

No matter how many times you rephrase the question, my answer remains that I don't want more guns around my children. I want less guns around my children.

I get that, but I don't get the why.

you aren't going to win this one. They are coming from an emotional, irrational vantage point, and rational arguments aren't going to work here. It's like debating with a woman.

The fact that you don't agree doesn't make the position irrational.

I haven't heard a single argument against limited number of qualified, thoroughly trained, and vetted school officials maintain properly secured and concealed weapons on campus.All we hear is a repeated "I just don't want guns around children" or "guns make me feel icky" or "won't someone think of the children?" or "I don't want my teacher putting a gun to her ear while she is learning cursive."

I don't want some school administrator deciding on the fly what situations warrant them pulling and discharging their weapon around a bunch of kids. Not every case is going to be as clear cut as this school shooting and mistakes will be made.I would also worry that a situation which could be resolved without violence being escalated into a shoot out by an over zealous armed administrator.I want law enforcement professionals making these types of decisions. No matter how much training these school officials will receive, it won't be as much as a police officer.Just my two cents.

...and for today's professional development we'll be focusing on reporting math score data to the department of education, helping new teachers with classroom management, upgrading the speech pathology department, taking down an active shooter with one shot, and how to set up a secret Santa in your school.Making the assumption that school leaders are the best ones to be armed in school is a mistake.

Who said it should be the responsibility of the school administrators or on their dime? It is a personal choice. Just like it will be a personal choice for the school districts to determine if they want to be a "Gun Free Zone" on their own.

 

[Apes with Guns]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

We just need to go around breaking the legs on all the deer to compensate.

then we would have to outlaw huge sticks.

 

[tom22406]

But regardless of some people's fascination and obsession with weapons, we shouldn't consider peoples reaction when making them.

This is a ridiculous statement. We shouldn't consider their view because it opposses ours?

I certainly hope he meant something else,we both read that the same way.And somehow only one side of this debate is irrational

 

[jurb26]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

I know. Personally I think we're at a point in our development that that hobby could go by the wayside, but I know that's just my view. So I thought about this a bit. How about we only allow hunting firearms to be rented to hunters by government agents at parks/reserves set up to allow hunting? Or perhaps you could still own your own rifles, but they'd have to be kept in lockers at such locations? Yes I realize it's opening up a loophole whereby crazy guy could drive out to the park pick up a rifle and bring it back to wherever to commit murder, but it makes it a lot tougher to do. You could also embed rfid in the guns somewhere and maybe have alarm/notification if they're taken outside a defined area or tampered with?

This assumes that people who own or highly support gun ownership are most concerned with hunting. I do not believe that to be the case. From my experience, these people are most concerned with personal protection from society and government.

I was only addressing the hunting question.For the rest, what I'd suggest is a ban on all rifles and anything more automated than a manual load revolver, 6 cartridge capacity maximum, 1 gun per adult maximum.

Then you may as well take them all away and only sell sling-shots. The idea is that the people, if need be, can defend themselves against a corupt government. How exactly would they do so with the guns you just said would be OK?That is the true intention of the right to bear arms. Like arms or not.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

Nobody enjoyed this alias the first time, Tim.

 

[RCon]

You know where there is a really low likelihood of people getting shot? Where there are no guns. Crazy thought, I know.

Awesome. Now if we can just persuade the criminals to abide by our gun free zone laws, we'll be all set.

 

[Glass Joe]

But regardless of some people's fascination and obsession with weapons, we shouldn't consider peoples reaction when making them.

This is a ridiculous statement. We shouldn't consider their view because it opposses ours?

It's not ridiculous - I said that whether there'd be people pissed off and ready to "rise up against a tyrannical government" shouldn't stop the people and its representatives from repealing the amendment.

 

[Apes with Guns]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

I know. Personally I think we're at a point in our development that that hobby could go by the wayside, but I know that's just my view. So I thought about this a bit. How about we only allow hunting firearms to be rented to hunters by government agents at parks/reserves set up to allow hunting? Or perhaps you could still own your own rifles, but they'd have to be kept in lockers at such locations? Yes I realize it's opening up a loophole whereby crazy guy could drive out to the park pick up a rifle and bring it back to wherever to commit murder, but it makes it a lot tougher to do. You could also embed rfid in the guns somewhere and maybe have alarm/notification if they're taken outside a defined area or tampered with?

I actually thought about this once. That means I think you are a genius!

 

[RCon]

You know where there is a really low likelihood of people getting shot? Where there are no guns. Crazy thought, I know.

So how do we get these guns out of the bad guys hands?Simply saying do away with them is not the answer.

Make all private citizens turn them in - legally. Make ridiculous penalties for having a gun after that time. Shut down sales. Essentially choke off the industry.No it won't ever rid the country of them. But it definitely will make them harder to get.

Worked great with alcohol and drugs. Seems like a no brainer.

 

[Henry Ford]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

Nobody enjoyed this alias the first time, Tim.

I'm glad someone hopped in and noted that this is an alias. I get really worried about gun ownership when I read posts like this.

 

[Gr00vus]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

I know. Personally I think we're at a point in our development that that hobby could go by the wayside, but I know that's just my view. So I thought about this a bit. How about we only allow hunting firearms to be rented to hunters by government agents at parks/reserves set up to allow hunting? Or perhaps you could still own your own rifles, but they'd have to be kept in lockers at such locations? Yes I realize it's opening up a loophole whereby crazy guy could drive out to the park pick up a rifle and bring it back to wherever to commit murder, but it makes it a lot tougher to do. You could also embed rfid in the guns somewhere and maybe have alarm/notification if they're taken outside a defined area or tampered with?

This assumes that people who own or highly support gun ownership are most concerned with hunting. I do not believe that to be the case. From my experience, these people are most concerned with personal protection from society and government.

I was only addressing the hunting question.For the rest, what I'd suggest is a ban on all rifles and anything more automated than a manual load revolver, 6 cartridge capacity maximum, 1 gun per adult maximum.

Then you may as well take them all away and only sell sling-shots. The idea is that the people, if need be, can defend themselves against a corupt government. How exactly would they do so with the guns you just said would be OK?That is the true intention of the right to bear arms. Like arms or not.

I addressed that way back in this thread. That ship has sailed. In this day and age you can have a standing Federal military complex/institution or you can have the ability to depose your government by force - not both. We have the former, so any idea you're going to change the government strictly through armed resistance is a fantasy at this point. Unless you manage to convince a significant proportion of our military to go with you, you're just going to be a casualty categorized as a terrorist.

 

[jurb26]

But regardless of some people's fascination and obsession with weapons, we shouldn't consider peoples reaction when making them.

This is a ridiculous statement. We shouldn't consider their view because it opposses ours?

It's not ridiculous - I said that whether there'd be people pissed off and ready to "rise up against a tyrannical government" shouldn't stop the people and its representatives from repealing the amendment.

So what defense to a "tyrannical government" do you support or suggest?

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

It's knowing people with your intelligence level having guns that scares me. Just saying.

 

[RCon]

This is like saying that you live in fear of your house burning down unless you have a fire extinguisher on hand. Is anyone seriously experiencing fear if they don't have one? No, probably not. But it's nice to be prepared, so responsible people keep one in the house.But I know that it feels good to say that the other side is "living in fear" and that it makes them seem irrational, so I do understand your choice of words here.

Not a good analogy since the thing that protects you (a gun) is also the thing that you need protection from (a gun). In your analogy the thing that protects you (a fire extinguisher) is different from the thing you are fearful of (fire).EDIT: Actually the analogy could work if the fire extinguishers were the cause of all house fires. But then, it would make little sense to put more fire extinguishers into your house to protect you from a fire extinguisher that could potentially harm you.

No, the thing you need protection from is "a bad guy". That bad guy might be armed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or simply bigger and stronger.

 

[jurb26]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

I know. Personally I think we're at a point in our development that that hobby could go by the wayside, but I know that's just my view. So I thought about this a bit. How about we only allow hunting firearms to be rented to hunters by government agents at parks/reserves set up to allow hunting? Or perhaps you could still own your own rifles, but they'd have to be kept in lockers at such locations? Yes I realize it's opening up a loophole whereby crazy guy could drive out to the park pick up a rifle and bring it back to wherever to commit murder, but it makes it a lot tougher to do. You could also embed rfid in the guns somewhere and maybe have alarm/notification if they're taken outside a defined area or tampered with?

This assumes that people who own or highly support gun ownership are most concerned with hunting. I do not believe that to be the case. From my experience, these people are most concerned with personal protection from society and government.

I was only addressing the hunting question.For the rest, what I'd suggest is a ban on all rifles and anything more automated than a manual load revolver, 6 cartridge capacity maximum, 1 gun per adult maximum.

Then you may as well take them all away and only sell sling-shots. The idea is that the people, if need be, can defend themselves against a corupt government. How exactly would they do so with the guns you just said would be OK?That is the true intention of the right to bear arms. Like arms or not.

I addressed that way back in this thread. That ship has sailed. In this day and age you can have a standing Federal military complex or you can have the ability to depose your government by force - not both. We have the former, so any idea you're going to change the government strictly through armed resistance is a fantasy at this point. Unless you manage to convince a significant proportion of our military with you, you're just going to be a casualty categorized as a terrorist.

My appologizes for coming into the game late! I'll try to take some time and go back through the thread. Don't have that time now though so we will have to post-pone this debate.

 

[Apes with Guns]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

I know. Personally I think we're at a point in our development that that hobby could go by the wayside, but I know that's just my view. So I thought about this a bit. How about we only allow hunting firearms to be rented to hunters by government agents at parks/reserves set up to allow hunting? Or perhaps you could still own your own rifles, but they'd have to be kept in lockers at such locations? Yes I realize it's opening up a loophole whereby crazy guy could drive out to the park pick up a rifle and bring it back to wherever to commit murder, but it makes it a lot tougher to do. You could also embed rfid in the guns somewhere and maybe have alarm/notification if they're taken outside a defined area or tampered with?

This assumes that people who own or highly support gun ownership are most concerned with hunting. I do not believe that to be the case. From my experience, these people are most concerned with personal protection from society and government.

I was only addressing the hunting question.For the rest, what I'd suggest is a ban on all rifles and anything more automated than a manual load revolver, 6 cartridge capacity maximum, 1 gun per adult maximum.

Then you may as well take them all away and only sell sling-shots. The idea is that the people, if need be, can defend themselves against a corupt government. How exactly would they do so with the guns you just said would be OK?That is the true intention of the right to bear arms. Like arms or not.

I thought the true intention of the right to bear arms was to avoid having a standing army that could be used against the nation's people and keep focus on defense of the nation. That would not preclude having our weapons stored at an armory.

 

[moleculo]

But regardless of some people's fascination and obsession with weapons, we shouldn't consider peoples reaction when making them.

This is a ridiculous statement. We shouldn't consider their view because it opposses ours?

It's not ridiculous - I said that whether there'd be people pissed off and ready to "rise up against a tyrannical government" shouldn't stop the people and its representatives from repealing the amendment.

go for it. Do you think you can get 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate, and 3/4 of the states to go along with you?I have my doubts, given that we can't even pass a budget.

 

[timschochet]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

Nobody enjoyed this alias the first time, Tim.

I'm glad someone hopped in and noted that this is an alias. I get really worried about gun ownership when I read posts like this.

You should be. Sure it's satire (thanks for pointing that out, Scoobygang!) but there's not a single word that is an exaggeration of some of the stuff I've been reading in various blogs. Not one word.

 

[tom22406]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

I know. Personally I think we're at a point in our development that that hobby could go by the wayside, but I know that's just my view. So I thought about this a bit. How about we only allow hunting firearms to be rented to hunters by government agents at parks/reserves set up to allow hunting? Or perhaps you could still own your own rifles, but they'd have to be kept in lockers at such locations? Yes I realize it's opening up a loophole whereby crazy guy could drive out to the park pick up a rifle and bring it back to wherever to commit murder, but it makes it a lot tougher to do. You could also embed rfid in the guns somewhere and maybe have alarm/notification if they're taken outside a defined area or tampered with?

This assumes that people who own or highly support gun ownership are most concerned with hunting. I do not believe that to be the case. From my experience, these people are most concerned with personal protection from society and government.

I was only addressing the hunting question.For the rest, what I'd suggest is a ban on all rifles and anything more automated than a manual load revolver, 6 cartridge capacity maximum, 1 gun per adult maximum.

Then you may as well take them all away and only sell sling-shots. The idea is that the people, if need be, can defend themselves against a corupt government. How exactly would they do so with the guns you just said would be OK?That is the true intention of the right to bear arms. Like arms or not.

I addressed that way back in this thread. That ship has sailed. In this day and age you can have a standing Federal military complex/institution or you can have the ability to depose your government by force - not both. We have the former, so any idea you're going to change the government strictly through armed resistance is a fantasy at this point. Unless you manage to convince a significant proportion of our military to go with you, you're just going to be a casualty categorized as a terrorist.

Well if they turn on us you are completely correct.My hope is they do the right thing and stand with the people if this ever does go down.

 

[Glass Joe]

But regardless of some people's fascination and obsession with weapons, we shouldn't consider peoples reaction when making them.

This is a ridiculous statement. We shouldn't consider their view because it opposses ours?

It's not ridiculous - I said that whether there'd be people pissed off and ready to "rise up against a tyrannical government" shouldn't stop the people and its representatives from repealing the amendment.

So what defense to a "tyrannical government" do you support or suggest?

Treason isn't the answer. Honestly - you choose to live in a country governed by a set of laws. If the laws aren't to your liking, lobby for change. LOL. The idea that you could resist the US military is ridiculous.

 

[jafo]

It seems people know as much about hunting as they do about guns, which is next to nothing.

 

[Glass Joe]

But regardless of some people's fascination and obsession with weapons, we shouldn't consider peoples reaction when making them.

This is a ridiculous statement. We shouldn't consider their view because it opposses ours?

It's not ridiculous - I said that whether there'd be people pissed off and ready to "rise up against a tyrannical government" shouldn't stop the people and its representatives from repealing the amendment.

go for it. Do you think you can get 2/3 of the house, 2/3 of the senate, and 3/4 of the states to go along with you?I have my doubts, given that we can't even pass a budget.

Nope. I don't for a second think it's realistic. But - I do see a shift in sentiment. So it's a start.

 

[Gr00vus]

I understand that. I've shot some myself - and part of me enjoyed it. I don't think the risks are worth that small reward however. I think the overall quality of life for the totality of humanity would be more enhanced by decreased destruction than it would be reduced by the lack of a shooting hobby.

It would be harder for people to hunt without guns.

I know. Personally I think we're at a point in our development that that hobby could go by the wayside, but I know that's just my view. So I thought about this a bit. How about we only allow hunting firearms to be rented to hunters by government agents at parks/reserves set up to allow hunting? Or perhaps you could still own your own rifles, but they'd have to be kept in lockers at such locations? Yes I realize it's opening up a loophole whereby crazy guy could drive out to the park pick up a rifle and bring it back to wherever to commit murder, but it makes it a lot tougher to do. You could also embed rfid in the guns somewhere and maybe have alarm/notification if they're taken outside a defined area or tampered with?

This assumes that people who own or highly support gun ownership are most concerned with hunting. I do not believe that to be the case. From my experience, these people are most concerned with personal protection from society and government.

I was only addressing the hunting question.For the rest, what I'd suggest is a ban on all rifles and anything more automated than a manual load revolver, 6 cartridge capacity maximum, 1 gun per adult maximum.

Then you may as well take them all away and only sell sling-shots. The idea is that the people, if need be, can defend themselves against a corupt government. How exactly would they do so with the guns you just said would be OK?That is the true intention of the right to bear arms. Like arms or not.

I addressed that way back in this thread. That ship has sailed. In this day and age you can have a standing Federal military complex/institution or you can have the ability to depose your government by force - not both. We have the former, so any idea you're going to change the government strictly through armed resistance is a fantasy at this point. Unless you manage to convince a significant proportion of our military to go with you, you're just going to be a casualty categorized as a terrorist.

Well if they turn on us you are completely correct.My hope is they do the right thing and stand with the people if this ever does go down.

Me too, but whether they do so or not will not be influenced by whatever meager weapons (by comparison) civilians have.

 

[tom22406]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

Nobody enjoyed this alias the first time, Tim.

I'm glad someone hopped in and noted that this is an alias. I get really worried about gun ownership when I read posts like this.

You should be. Sure it's satire (thanks for pointing that out, Scoobygang!) but there's not a single word that is an exaggeration of some of the stuff I've been reading in various blogs. Not one word.

So why use an alias?Most knew it was you(except me)

 

[Snotbubbles]

This is like saying that you live in fear of your house burning down unless you have a fire extinguisher on hand. Is anyone seriously experiencing fear if they don't have one? No, probably not. But it's nice to be prepared, so responsible people keep one in the house.But I know that it feels good to say that the other side is "living in fear" and that it makes them seem irrational, so I do understand your choice of words here.

Not a good analogy since the thing that protects you (a gun) is also the thing that you need protection from (a gun). In your analogy the thing that protects you (a fire extinguisher) is different from the thing you are fearful of (fire).EDIT: Actually the analogy could work if the fire extinguishers were the cause of all house fires. But then, it would make little sense to put more fire extinguishers into your house to protect you from a fire extinguisher that could potentially harm you.

No, the thing you need protection from is "a bad guy". That bad guy might be armed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or simply bigger and stronger.

Are you implying that a gun is the only form of protection that could save a person in a situation where there is a "bad guy"?

 

[RCon]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

Nobody enjoyed this alias the first time, Tim.

I'm glad someone hopped in and noted that this is an alias. I get really worried about gun ownership when I read posts like this.

You should be. Sure it's satire (thanks for pointing that out, Scoobygang!) but there's not a single word that is an exaggeration of some of the stuff I've been reading in various blogs. Not one word.

Right, and Otis and others on the "get rid of guns" side have been totally rational. There are moronic extremists on both sides of every issue. Ignoring them is the appropriate course of action, nod feeding the trolls.

 

[RCon]

This is like saying that you live in fear of your house burning down unless you have a fire extinguisher on hand. Is anyone seriously experiencing fear if they don't have one? No, probably not. But it's nice to be prepared, so responsible people keep one in the house.But I know that it feels good to say that the other side is "living in fear" and that it makes them seem irrational, so I do understand your choice of words here.

Not a good analogy since the thing that protects you (a gun) is also the thing that you need protection from (a gun). In your analogy the thing that protects you (a fire extinguisher) is different from the thing you are fearful of (fire).EDIT: Actually the analogy could work if the fire extinguishers were the cause of all house fires. But then, it would make little sense to put more fire extinguishers into your house to protect you from a fire extinguisher that could potentially harm you.

No, the thing you need protection from is "a bad guy". That bad guy might be armed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or simply bigger and stronger.

Are you implying that a gun is the only form of protection that could save a person in a situation where there is a "bad guy"?

No. I was implying that the thing one might need protection from is "a bad guy", who might be armed with a gun, a knife, a baseball bat, or simply bigger and stronger.

 

[moleculo]

I'm cool with "guns as a safeguard against a tyrannical gov't" being dropped.

When the Constitution was written, we had no idea if government of the people, for the people, or by the people would actually work. It sounded great, but hadn't been tried since what...early Rome? As we had just gotten done rebelling against a tyrannical gov't, it was logical to ensure that the next gov't wouldn't morph into something no one wanted.

Our current gov't now has a 200+ year track record. I think a vast majority would agree that the US Federal gov't is not a tyrant that needs to be disposed. We have an appropriate number of checks and balances, we have ways for laws to be changed as needed. We have a graceful transition of power. further, citizens armed with semi-automatic weapons would be no match for the US military, so I don't see the point any more.

 

[ATC1]

You know what this thread makes me wanna do? (Besides puke, that is!) It makes me want to go out and buy another half dozen AR-15s to add to my arsenal! Think I'm gonna do that this weekend.The United States Constitution grants all Americans a God-given right to own firearms. And when you try to take that away, or try to tell me how many rounds I can have, or that I have to report to some federal authority, that's whn I say, try it! When the government becomes a dictatorship, that's when we fight back. Somebody has to. If it takes armed resistance to keep freedom afloat, then so be it.And in case any of you think I'm overstating the threat, here's a little history: the Jews of Germany were a well-armed group who believed, above all things, in gun rights, because the Bible told them so. The first thing Hitler did when he took power in 1937 was seize all of the Jew guns. A few days later, they were all put to death in gas chambers. All of this is well-documented.We gun-owners are the Jews of the 21st century. Only this time we're not going to go away quietly.

Nobody enjoyed this alias the first time, Tim.

I'm glad someone hopped in and noted that this is an alias. I get really worried about gun ownership when I read posts like this.

You should be. Sure it's satire (thanks for pointing that out, Scoobygang!) but there's not a single word that is an exaggeration of some of the stuff I've been reading in various blogs. Not one word.

OK, so what Pro-gun poster has the chopmeat alias?