Gun Ownership...

[(akaRyanHoffman)]

Personally, i'm pretty liberal, and have never personlaly shot fires from a real gun...(bbguns don't count.)

but...gun ownership?

Why not?


I think most of us know the right thing to do and aren't going to take the extrememe aproach.

[RebootedCorpse]

Hunting guns are one thing.
But if you own a handgun, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one than ever use it for "protection."

[Jay Wesson]

Guns are awesome. They blow stuff up.

[The Human Target]

I don't understand the pole.

I'm all for pretty strict gun control.

Its been proven to work in other countries.

[Matt O'Keefe]

Hunting guns are one thing.
But if you own a handgun, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one than ever use it for "protection."

Yup. I'd prefer long and hard training before someone was allowed to personally own a handgun. Maybe a bit stricter for rifles, too.

[(akaRyanHoffman)]

I don't understand the pole.

I'm all for pretty strict gun control.

Its been proven to work in other countries.


i like confusing people...


i haven't even voted.

[Jay Wesson]

I don't understand the pole.

I'm all for pretty strict gun control.

Its been proven to work in other countries.

Sure. What about Switzerland and Israel?

[half guard]

I don't understand the pole.

well, it's primarily made up of what is commonly referred to as the "shaft" with a bulbous tip which is often called the "head". when a male of the species gets excited, it becomes stricken with rigor mortis (griffin, 2006, pg 2).



griffin, stewie (2006) my penis appears to be stricken with rigor mortis. family guy. pg 1.

[Jay Wesson]

well, it's primarily made up of what is commonly referred to as the "shaft" with a bulbous tip which is often called the "head". when a male of the species gets excited, it becomes stricken with rigor mortis (griffin, 2006, pg 2).



griffin, stewie (2006) my penis appears to be stricken with rigor mortis. family guy. pg 1.

Well done, sir. Well done.

[The Human Target]

well, it's primarily made up of what is commonly referred to as the "shaft" with a bulbous tip which is often called the "head". when a male of the species gets excited, it becomes stricken with rigor mortis (griffin, 2006, pg 2).

griffin, stewie (2006) my penis appears to be stricken with rigor mortis. family guy. pg 1.

I was waiting for someone to notice that.

[Jason California]

Hunting guns are one thing.
But if you own a handgun, you're more likely to shoot yourself or a loved one than ever use it for "protection."

Thats only if you dont know how to use it. If you get a gun you should educate yourself on it. Just like driving a car, get trained properly and you avoid most perils.

Then it comes in handy for defense.

[Doc Randy]

I love shooting firearms, but I don't own any. My wife would kill me if I tried to bring one home - which is odd because her dad is a gun collector and him and I go to the range every time we visit.

I am also pro gun control. I specifically think we should have licensing and registration for all firearms in this nation. But... I ultimately think this is more of a state by state issue because the needs of New York aren't going to be the same as the needs of Montana.

[Jay Wesson]

I love shooting firearms, but I don't own any. My wife would kill me if I tried to bring one home - which is odd because her dad is a gun collector and him and I go to the range every time we visit.

I am also pro gun control. I specifically think we should have licensing and registration for all firearms in this nation. But... I ultimately think this is more of a state by state issue because the needs of New York aren't going to be the same as the needs of Montana.

I think we're on the same page here.

I have no problem with licensing, and even a national ballistics fingerprint database. I just want to be able to own a handgun responsibly if I chose to.

And I have several.

[c. page]

I think we're on the same page here.

I have no problem with licensing, and even a national ballistics fingerprint database. I just want to be able to own a handgun responsibly if I chose to.

And I have several.

*bing*

pretty much summed up my feelings on it.

[DeleriumTremens]

I love gun ownership. I think more normal people should own guns.

[Jacob Lyon Goddard]

don't own a gun, but i wouldn't be surprised if i purchased one in the next five years

[lonesomefool]

Hunting Guns? Sure

Handguns? Maybe

Semi-automatics or anything like that? Hell No.

[Blandy vs Terrorism]

I think we're on the same page here.

I have no problem with licensing, and even a national ballistics fingerprint database. I just want to be able to own a handgun responsibly if I chose to.

And I have several.

Yes.

[Jason California]

Everybody needs a gun for the revolution....

except that I dont see that happening.

[/(. . )/]

I would say most gun owners are responsible, good people. My father loves guns.

However, take them away. Guns have proven to be a danger for society. It makes killings (especially school/office/mall) shootings very easy and difficult for victims to defend themselves.

The gun enthusiasts can find something else to do. They don't need guns at the live risk of the hundreds of people killed a day across the world.

I also realize that some people make a living in the industry. Even, the warmest kindest poster on this board who I totally endear with my heart.

However, living in a society where only the mob and cops have guns, I can guarantee you that it is much safer. In this society, there were 4 gun murders this year. A mayor, a police officer, and I think a gang member, where all killed by mob people, and recently a police office murdered a woman he was stalking and then himself. One year, 4 murders. This is heavily correlated to living in a gun free society.

Every now and then, there is some nut who randomly slashes a school kid. Could you imagine if these people had guns?

Civilians don't need guns.

[Jay Wesson]

I would say most gun owners are responsible, good people. My father loves guns.

However, take them away. Guns have proven to be a danger for society. It makes killings (especially school/office/mall) shootings very easy and difficult for victims to defend themselves.

The gun enthusiasts can find something else to do. They don't need guns at the live risk of the hundreds of people killed a day across the world.

I also realize that some people make a living in the industry. Even, the warmest kindest poster on this board who I totally endear with my heart.

However, living in a society where only the mob and cops have guns, I can guarantee you that it is much safer. In this society, there were 4 gun murders this year. A mayor, a police officer, and I think a gang member, where all killed by mob people, and recently a police office murdered a woman he was stalking and then himself. One year, 4 murders. This is heavily correlated to living in a gun free society.

Every now and then, there is some nut who randomly slashes a school kid. Could you imagine if these people had guns?

Civilians don't need guns.

That's an extremely cogent, articulate argument.

However...

Consider that the gun-related homicide rates are lower in areas of the United States where civilian gun ownership is actually higher.

Consider the fact that New Zealand, Israel, and Switzerland have more guns per capita and less murders than the U.S.

Also consider that the U.S. non-gun homicide rate exceeds the total homicide rate of many, many other countries.

I hate to quote the NRA, but guns don't kill people, people do.

Let's keep them out of as many of the wrong hands as possible. I think that's where the line should be drawn.

[RickLM]

I hear people talk about "protecting their families", which makes it sound like they have zombies scratching at the front door. I personally don't get it, and have never owned a firearm, and I still feel safe here in the suburbs.

[Amos Moses]

Handguns and hunting rifles are cool with me. But civilan ownership of assault rifles and machine guns is, in my humble opinion, completely unnaccepable. Shooting a deer with a .50 caliber machine gun is not hunting, it's just you getting off on killing an animal, and it insults hunting.

[jamestolliver]

Uh, my family has been affected by illegal hand guns so this is kind of a difficult topic for me. If there is gun ownership then I think it should much more difficult to get a gun license then a driving license. I think there needs to be a national gun registry and personally I'm against any form of hand guns. I think they are a weapon designed for concealment and thus criminals gravitate towards them. I don't care about the 2nd amendment when I've been affected by gun violence.

[Boris the Blade]

Hell yeah, should I ever have to rise up against my government, I need the means. And guns are the means.

[Amos Moses]

Hell yeah, should I ever have to rise up against my government, I need the means. And guns are the means.

You're Canadian. The only thing you'll need to "rise up" against is Quebec. And you won't even need a gun.

[Kody]

My mom once fires several rounds through the door and into a junkie that was kicking our door in. But yeah, if she hadn't had that gun, i'm sure he would have just borrowed some sugar and been on his way.

[Boris the Blade]

The Conservatives have taken over.

And if I learned anything from history, it's that I need a musket for the times to come.

[silverboy]

I think only people who need guns should have guns--and most people don't need guns.

[artimoff]

Big yay for guns from me. But any crime committed with a gun should get life, including criminal threatening .

[King of Mars]

I've been wrestling with the idea of buying a gun for ages. I realize that we are NEVER gonna get rid of all the guns in this country, and it makes sense to arm myself while living in this increasingly dangerous society...but the idea of bringing that sort of instrument of destruction into my house kinda scares.

[Jason California]

I think only people who need guns should have guns--and most people don't need guns.

How do you choose who needs a gun ?

[mike black]

Keep it as is, and evolving with the growing needs of the law enforcement community.

[Jason California]

I would say most gun owners are responsible, good people. My father loves guns.

However, take them away. Guns have proven to be a danger for society. It makes killings (especially school/office/mall) shootings very easy and difficult for victims to defend themselves.

The gun enthusiasts can find something else to do. They don't need guns at the live risk of the hundreds of people killed a day across the world.

I also realize that some people make a living in the industry. Even, the warmest kindest poster on this board who I totally endear with my heart.

However, living in a society where only the mob and cops have guns, I can guarantee you that it is much safer. In this society, there were 4 gun murders this year. A mayor, a police officer, and I think a gang member, where all killed by mob people, and recently a police office murdered a woman he was stalking and then himself. One year, 4 murders. This is heavily correlated to living in a gun free society.

Every now and then, there is some nut who randomly slashes a school kid. Could you imagine if these people had guns?

Civilians don't need guns.

What would have happened if people at Virginia Tech had been armed ? I really doubt so many people would have died.

I dont know the total murder rate in japan so I can not put your comment correctly into perspective. I would need to see how often people ar getting killed by other means, along with a few other facts to do this.

[Brian Defferding]

:D In the words of Optimus Prime, "Freedom is the right to all sentient beings." That freedom cannot be sacrificed, and is necessary to have all means for self defense. Yes to gun ownership, and it's something I will fight for to keep our private rights to bear arms.

Btw, this is one of the reasons why I prefer to debate politics on message boards. I can incorporate nerdity with my arguments!

[Jay Wesson]

:D In the words of Optimus Prime, "Freedom is the right to all sentient beings." That freedom cannot be sacrificed, and is necessary to have all means for self defense. Yes to gun ownership, and it's something I will fight for to keep our private rights to bear arms.

Btw, this is one of the reasons why I prefer to debate politics on message boards. I can incorporate nerdity with my arguments!

:heart:

[natalie]

What would have happened if people at Virginia Tech had been armed ? I really doubt so many people would have died.


What would have happened if the one crazy person never had a gun? I really doubt so many people would have died.

[Sy-Klone]

I recognize the right to bear arms. I believe in the right to bear arms. I don't think it necessarily is an unrestricted right, and so I also support reasonable gun control.

Of course, "reasonable" is a weasel word, and what might be right for you may not be right for some. A man is born. He's a man of means. Then along came two, they had nothing but their...

*ahem*

Anyway, I voted yes.

[stevapalooza]

I would say most gun owners are responsible, good people. My father loves guns.

However, take them away. Guns have proven to be a danger for society. It makes killings (especially school/office/mall) shootings very easy and difficult for victims to defend themselves.

The gun enthusiasts can find something else to do. They don't need guns at the live risk of the hundreds of people killed a day across the world.

I also realize that some people make a living in the industry. Even, the warmest kindest poster on this board who I totally endear with my heart.

However, living in a society where only the mob and cops have guns, I can guarantee you that it is much safer. In this society, there were 4 gun murders this year. A mayor, a police officer, and I think a gang member, where all killed by mob people, and recently a police office murdered a woman he was stalking and then himself. One year, 4 murders. This is heavily correlated to living in a gun free society.

Every now and then, there is some nut who randomly slashes a school kid. Could you imagine if these people had guns?

Civilians don't need guns.


Your arguments would make sense if the majority of gun murders were committed by legal gun owners who snapped. But they're not. Most gun murders are committed with illegally bought firearms. School & workplace shootings, horrific as they are, are still amazingly rare. Taking guns away from lawful gun owners would barely make a dent in gun deaths. In fact for all we know gun deaths might actually increase after that. Knowing the general population is unarmed would sure make me bolder if I was a criminal.

[yeamon]

What would have happened if the one crazy person never had a gun? I really doubt so many people would have died.

But that is the rub with gun laws. More licensing and registration regulation would not have affected the actions of the shooter. He broke a half dozen gun laws when he walked on campus. Would a half dozen more have been a deterrent?

I think the person who earlier said that every crime involving a gun should be prosecuted with a life sentence is actually on the right track. The way to reduce gun violence is to direct action at the criminals, not the tools they use.

[xyzzy]

I don't really understand what question is being posed by the poll.

I like target shooting, though I do not own a gun. I'm in favor of a reasonable level of gun control. I'm a big fan of Constitutional rights, but they are not without limit. You can't scream "fire" in a crowded theater and you shouldn't be allowed to possess certain kinds of firearms.

[WinterRose]

I'm for the citizenry allowed to own any kind of firearm they like. Hell with hunting and all the sort of thing you really don't need a gun for. We are oppressed as a people in the United States. And we are oppressed because we clearly could not rise up as a people if we felt the need to. Gods, that sounds nuts to me when I say it.

But honestly, I think of the WTO riots in Seattle and the illegal state of martial law the mayor declared. I remember pepper bombs being launched at peaceful protestors. I remember not being able to touch ANYTHING downtown and being able to touch your face afterward. I remember cops with 19 shot glocks on every corner with belts full of zip ties to immobilize you with. I remember if you carried a gas mask (which I did concealed in my pack) downtown, you got arrested for it.

And if the populace were armed, I think shit would have gone a LOT differently. It probably would have gone AS tragically, but to be honest, it probably would have been localized to one or two shootings instead of the hundreds of people injured by the police. No way would they have waded into the crowds, clubbing people and shooting them point blank with rubber bullets had they been able to respond in their own defense.

Yes, we as a people would be a lot less easy to control by our government. But I consider that a good thing.

[NickT]

I voted Nay.

[Kody]

I'm for the citizenry allowed to own any kind of firearm they like. Hell with hunting and all the sort of thing you really don't need a gun for. We are oppressed as a people in the United States. And we are oppressed because we clearly could not rise up as a people if we felt the need to. Gods, that sounds nuts to me when I say it.

But honestly, I think of the WTO riots in Seattle and the illegal state of martial law the mayor declared. I remember pepper bombs being launched at peaceful protestors. I remember not being able to touch ANYTHING downtown and being able to touch your face afterward. I remember cops with 19 shot glocks on every corner with belts full of zip ties to immobilize you with. I remember if you carried a gas mask (which I did concealed in my pack) downtown, you got arrested for it.

And if the populace were armed, I think shit would have gone a LOT differently. It probably would have gone AS tragically, but to be honest, it probably would have been localized to one or two shootings instead of the hundreds of people injured by the police. No way would they have waded into the crowds, clubbing people and shooting them point blank with rubber bullets had they been able to respond in their own defense.

Yes, we as a people would be a lot less easy to control by our government. But I consider that a good thing.

I strongly disagree. A contrasting situation would be in New Orleans and Cameron Parish after Katrina and Rita. The police were completely handicapped (non existent) and it was every man for himself. No phones and every road was flooded. It's for situations like this that every citizen should have the ability to defend themselves and their family without having to rely on the police. In the vast majority of situations police don't prevent crime, they show up AFTER the crime is committed.

The key to remember here is that criminals don't give a shit about laws, and that includes gun laws. Gun laws ONLY affect people that follow laws.

[yeamon]

I strongly disagree.

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee, but I can't figure out where you disagree with him.

[Kody]

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee, but I can't figure out where you disagree with him.

He thinks private citizens shouldn't be armed. I think they should.

[Kody]

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee, but I can't figure out where you disagree with him.

Ha, on wait, nevermind, I misread his post. :D
Apparently we do agree.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

I'm for gun ownership, and own 800 guns which are lovingly stored in my zombie bomb-shelter. (Which is for the impending zombie holocaust.) Many are handguns, and I haven't shot a family member or myself yet, but I do laugh whenever a liberal says that I'm --% more likely to do so than to shoot a criminal. I mean, I suppose so, since it's very unlikely I'll encounter a criminal in my home. I hope I do though.

[Alex(sadly)Maleev]

Guns kill people. People kill people. Give people the right to own a twig. Not a gun.

[Doug]

I do not own a gun, and I can not forsee a reason why I ever will. I feel safe in the neighborhood that I live in (Police station is literally 1 block over from us, and right next to a highschool).

I also go by the Chris Rock mentality of gun control. If you don't want have stricter gun control laws (which I do) then make the bullets $5,000.00 each. You'll have to think really hard about spending that kind of money to shoot someone.

[Jason California]

Police are not always going to be there. It is foolish to put all your defense in them and leave yourself a victim when you are left to your own devices.

And the citizens need to have firearms in case they ever need to defend themselves against a tyranical government.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

Guns kill people. People kill people. Give people the right to own a twig. Not a gun.

Sorry, I need to be able to shoot you if you come to my house to steal my shit. And my wife needs to shoot people too, so she's got a lavendar scented .45.

[WinterRose]

Ha, on wait, nevermind, I misread his post. :D
Apparently we do agree.

:rofl: Classic! I was reading going... "Um.. on what point do we disagree? It seems my argument was for protection FROM the police. Kody's was for protection WITHOUT the police." You get 100 points.

[Jay Wesson]

Sorry, I need to be able to shoot you if you come to my house to steal my shit. And my wife needs to shoot people too, so she's got a lavendar scented .45.

Where might I find one of those? My mom has a birthday coming up.

[WinterRose]

Where might I find one of those? My mom has a birthday coming up.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/WinterRose/PORTRAITS/Family-MommaWiddaGun-Untitled-44.jpg

.45 Handgun, CHECK
US Postal Service Shirt, CHECK
Computer Geekiness, CHECK

I LOVE MY MOM.

[Alex(sadly)Maleev]

Sorry, I need to be able to shoot you if you come to my house to steal my shit. And my wife needs to shoot people too, so she's got a lavendar scented .45.

I'm coming with my .22 twig.

[Ethan Van Sciver]

I'm coming with my .22 twig.

We win. Alex, people sometimes have the right to kill other people. Or at least shoot them. Guns make that more efficient.

[WinterRose]

I'm coming with my .22 twig.

Okay... That sounded like something completely else. And so self-depricating I thought:

"Damn, that sounds like a personal problem."

Then:

Lewis Grizzard: "Damn, brother, I don't believe I'd'a said that."

Then:

Chris Knight: "Think before you say these things, Mitch. 20 points higher than me, and he thinks I can wear his clothes?"

[Doc Randy]

And the citizens need to have firearms in case they ever need to defend themselves against a tyranical government.

I hear this argument a lot and it makes me laugh. Why don't you ask the Iraqi's if all their AK47s prevented decades of tyranny under Saddam. They had plenty of firearms and it didn't protect shit.

The simple fact is that there is a huge technology gap between weapons available to military forces and weapons available to the public. There was much less of a gap at the time the Bill of Rights was written and it made plausible sense that a populace armed with muskets and hunting rifles could challenge an army.

Not any more.

Like I said earlier... I love shooting. I just think this particular argument has lost its teeth over the years.

[yeamon]

The simple fact is that there is a huge technology gap between weapons available to military forces and weapons available to the public. There was much less of a gap at the time the Bill of Rights was written and it made plausible sense that a populace armed with muskets and hunting rifles could challenge an army.

Not any more.

Like I said earlier... I love shooting. I just think this particular argument has lost its teeth over the years.

I dunno, man. There is an insurgency in Iraq that appears to be effectively countering this viewpoint. We got our tails waxed pretty good by an enemy in Southeast Asia that was technologically inferior.

I'm not supporting the argument against gun control as a right to revolt. I'm just saying that superior technology does not guarantee victory, especially where revolution is concerned.

[Doc Randy]

I dunno, man. There is an insurgency in Iraq that appears to be effectively countering this viewpoint. We got our tails waxed pretty good by an enemy in Southeast Asia that was technologically inferior.

I'm not supporting the argument against gun control as a right to revolt. I'm just saying that superior technology does not guarantee victory, especially where revolution is concerned.

In Iraq, the most effective weapons being used against us are shape charges and EFP devices being supplied by foreign militaries.

And in Vietnam, the US was still up against foreign air forces, artillery, SAMs, etc... And again, they were being equipped by foreign militaries.

And again, it isn't just the superior technology, but the gap in technology.

The simple fact is that most gun advocates here in the US that use the "protect us from tyranny" argument aren't asking for EFPs, SAMs, artillery, tanks, or a civilian air force complete with advanced air-to-air missiles. All they are asking for is small firearms - which can not prevent tyranny - as evidenced in Iraq and other tyrannies.

[The Mandarin]

Don't like guns. They make me nervous. I inhereted a gun-case full from my father, but they are gathering dust. I'd almost certainly get rid of them if they were not an inheritence. Personally I think there should be strict gun-control laws simply because statistics back up such laws saving lives. I'm a scientific method guy myself, and if gun-control saves lives in a variety of countires with different cultures and economies, that is pretty good proof to me of the efficacy of gun-control.

[MicahO]

I always wonder how someone can willingly bring something into their home that is designed to kill people. Accidents happen all the time... why have something around that when it works right people die?

[Brian Defferding]

I always wonder how someone can willingly bring something into their home that is designed to kill people. Accidents happen all the time... why have something around that when it works right people die?

Self defense is necessary to preserve one's life and other's lives.

Taking away guns or limiting access to guns for the purpose of safety is no different than the USA Patriot measures of sacrificing our civil liberties for our safety - when we don't have the choice for self defense because of more government intrusion, are we truly safe? No.

I don't own a gun, hopefully will never need to, and I don't think owning a gun is the best idea for some families, but there may be a time where I will need to (and possibly in a situation that I will need to have one immediately), and it's wrong for such option to be taken away from me. That loss of choice in itself is also incredibly unsafe.

It's all fine and good if someone campaigns for lesser gun ownership - but when someone thinks there should be a law against gun use, or stricter gun regulation, that's where I draw the line.

[Doc Randy]

Self defense is necessary to preserve one's life and other's lives.

Taking away guns or limiting access to guns for the purpose of safety is no different than the USA Patriot measures of sacrificing our civil liberties for our safety - when we don't have the choice for self defense through more government intrusion, are we truly safe? No.

I don't own a gun, hopefully will never need to, and I don't think owning a gun is the best idea for some families, but there may be a time where I will need to (and possibly in a situation that I will need to have one immediately), and it's wrong for such option to be taken away from me. That loss of choice in itself is also incredibly unsafe.

It's all fine and good if someone campaigns for lesser gun ownership - but when someone thinks there should be a law against gun use, or stricter gun regulation, that's where I draw the line.

The difference is that the Supreme Court has historically ruled that you as a citizen do not have an inalienable right to own arms. The 2nd Amendment has regulation built into it and typically only applies to militias.

Though it should be noted that Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia (2007) is the first case to ever strike down a gun control law as being unconstitutional - but this question will once again be addressed by the SCOTUS this year who haven't weighed in on the 2nd Amendment in over 60 years.

[BriRedfern]

I think we're on the same page here.

I have no problem with licensing, and even a national ballistics fingerprint database. I just want to be able to own a handgun responsibly if I chose to.

And I have several.


There would have to be some pretty stiff regulations on the ballistic fingerprinting as well. I don't want the queen of england finding out I killed the soldiers that tried to take over the local Y.

[Jason California]

I hear this argument a lot and it makes me laugh. Why don't you ask the Iraqi's if all their AK47s prevented decades of tyranny under Saddam. They had plenty of firearms and it didn't protect shit.

The simple fact is that there is a huge technology gap between weapons available to military forces and weapons available to the public. There was much less of a gap at the time the Bill of Rights was written and it made plausible sense that a populace armed with muskets and hunting rifles could challenge an army.

Not any more.

Like I said earlier... I love shooting. I just think this particular argument has lost its teeth over the years.


So what I am getting from you is that because private firearms are so weak in comparrison to what the military has we should not even consider it as an option ?

I am sorry but if this scenario ever played out I would want to have as many options as I could.

[TheKraken]

Handguns and hunting rifles are cool with me. But civilan ownership of assault rifles and machine guns is, in my humble opinion, completely unnaccepable. Shooting a deer with a .50 caliber machine gun is not hunting, it's just you getting off on killing an animal, and it insults hunting.

That's about where I stand, too. If you feel like you need a hand gun to protect yourself, more power to you, but a private citizen's got no good reason to own an automatic weapon.

[Kody]

For those that never read it:

"A well regulated Militia (libera's focus on this), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (conservatives focus on this)."

The first references "a militia", the second references "the people". Sure, it's open for debate, but in most cases the Bill of Rights were written to limit government, not to limit the citizens.

[(akaRyanHoffman)]

Jesus fucking Christ this is a weird poll.

(This is what happens when I'm drinking, online and jamming some Clutch.)

[Doc Randy]

For those that never read it:

"A well regulated Militia (libera's focus on this), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (conservatives focus on this)."

The first references "a militia", the second references "the people". Sure, it's open for debate, but in most cases the Bill of Rights were written to limit government, not to limit the citizens.

I always thought it was funny how it never properly defined arms.

Assuming we were "originalists" or "strict constructionists" in our interpretation of the Constitution, "arms" would only apply to the arms available in Colonial times - muskets and muzzle-loaders.

Assuming a broader definition, there is nothing in the 2nd Amendment that would specifically exclude grenades, explosives, artillery, land mines, weaponized anthrax, or even nukes.

The simple fact is that gun control has been ruled constitutional repeatedly. The reality is that no rights are absolute and the US Constitution inherently allows the government to deprive people of life, liberty, and property with due process of the law.

[WinterRose]

I always thought it was funny how it never properly defined arms.

Okay... since we need a definition here...


arm 2 (ärm)
n.

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
1. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
2. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
3. Heraldry Bearings.
4. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.
4. arms
1. Heraldry Bearings.
2. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.


v. armed, arm·ing, arms

v. intr.

1. To supply or equip oneself with weaponry.
2. To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict.

v. tr.

1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war.
2. To equip with what is needed for effective action: tax advisers who were armed with the latest forms.
3. To provide with something that strengthens or protects: a space reentry vehicle that was armed with a ceramic shield.
4. To prepare (a weapon) for use or operation, as by releasing a safety device.

[From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French, pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons; see ar- in Indo-European roots. V., Middle English armen, from Old French armer, from Latin armāre, from arma.]

armed (ärmd) adj., arm'er n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

[Doc Randy]

WinterRose,

My point is...

Would this include 155mm Howitzers? 50 cal machine guns with API (Armor Piercing Incendiary) rounds? Flame throwers? RPGs? Suitcase Nukes?

Where is the line as drawn by the US Constitution?

[c. page]

The difference is that the Supreme Court has historically ruled that you as a citizen do not have an inalienable right to own arms. The 2nd Amendment has regulation built into it and typically only applies to militias.

Though it should be noted that Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia (2007) is the first case to ever strike down a gun control law as being unconstitutional - but this question will once again be addressed by the SCOTUS this year who haven't weighed in on the 2nd Amendment in over 60 years.

it'll be interesting to see how they weigh in on it, given the makeup of the court as it currently stands.

[RebootedCorpse]

I wonder how Webster's 1806 Compendious Dictionary would have defined "arms."

[Doc Randy]

I wonder how Webster's 1806 Compendious Dictionary would have defined "arms."

God bless the internet!


Arms, n. pl. the ensigns of a family, weapons, war

[Ryan Elliott]

Handguns and hunting rifles are cool with me. But civilan ownership of assault rifles and machine guns is, in my humble opinion, completely unnaccepable. Shooting a deer with a .50 caliber machine gun is not hunting, it's just you getting off on killing an animal, and it insults hunting.


Please. HUNTING insults hunting.

[WinterRose]

WinterRose,

My point is...

Would this include 155mm Howitzers? 50 cal machine guns with API (Armor Piercing Incendiary) rounds? Flame throwers? RPGs? Suitcase Nukes?

Where is the line as drawn by the US Constitution?

Simply put. THere is not one. There are all manner of regulatory commissions and laws and hoops one has to jump through in order to procure a weapon still. But I'm reasonably sure someone isn't goint to get the red mercury they need for a suitcase nuke. The surveillance involved on things like nitrogen fertilizer nowadays are going to weed out quite a lot of the mad bombers.

That said, if I want to purchase a fully automatic Steyr AUG-CSL combat system with the sniper conversion kit, (The one that Klaus was chasing Bruce Willis about with in Die Hard for you civilians) I should have that right. EVERYONE, provided they pass the same background checks and safety training, should have that right.

As for Howitzers... I suppose I can draw a line there. That's beyond being a man portable arm. That there is ARTILLERY, EXPLOSIVES. There's really not all that much people need that for aside from going on a full on assault. (I suppose there's the fisherman's argument. A mortar cannon instead of tossing Dynamite in... ) I suppose you could still make them available directly from the government, who will have files on the folks they wouldn't want to sell to.

But then... People with artillery or or explosive munitions would really only be collecting those kinds of thing to withstand an assault from the government or the state itself. So they wouldn't be selling any really. People would have the right to have one. But having the right to own and being able to procure are two different things.

If you want to take it literally, how about this compromise. Any arm a PERSON can bear is fair game. If you need another person or a vehicle to mount it on, it's no longer just a weapon someone can constitutionally bear. Hows that grab ya? I know that lets people have grenades. I'm fine with that.

[GelfXIII]

the way I see it, it's basically the same as any kind of power: Anyone who wants it, shouldn't be allowed to have it.

[Doc Randy]

If you want to take it literally, how about this compromise. Any arm a PERSON can bear is fair game. If you need another person or a vehicle to mount it on, it's no longer just a weapon someone can constitutionally bear. Hows that grab ya? I know that lets people have grenades. I'm fine with that.

That would include bazookas, panzerschreks, RPGs, Stinger Missile Systems, and various MANPADS (MAN Portable Aerial Defense Systems). FYI, Stingers and MANPADS are what the US Intelligence agencies say is the number 1 potential domestic terrorist threat. Why should anybody have the right to own a shoulder fired weapon capable of shooting down a jumbo jet and killing about 500 people?

[WinterRose]

That would include bazookas, panzerschreks, RPGs, Stinger Missile Systems, and various MANPADS (MAN Portable Aerial Defense Systems). FYI, Stingers and MANPADS are what the US Intelligence agencies say is the number 1 potential domestic terrorist threat. Why should anybody have the right to own a shoulder fired weapon capable of shooting down a jumbo jet and killing about 500 people?

I counter with the question, why should the government have a monopoly on being able to take out a massively successful populist rebellion with a surgical airstrike? I've made the joke in the past about the confederacy. I have no tolerance for their redneck ways, but when they say the south will rise again, they'll be put down again pretty much instantly with air superiority and a well placed ICBM in Atlanta.

Right now, I'd be pretty happy with a massive reboot of our system of government. With the current imbalance of power, we are at a point in history where we have no ability physically to overthrow our oppressors. The only possible way I can imagine is if we all simultaneously in our millions marched on Washington DC at once. Not at all minding the possibility of being struck at from the air, or mowed down in the tens of thousands by loyalist troops that didn't defect.

Again... Stingers and MANPADS? I'd say that was artillery. But honestly... and this is going to sound way the far out there wacko, so take it with a grain of salt the same way I am when I say it. I'm not too much against the idea of people with man-portable artillery. The government can field vehicle mounted microwave cannons and sonic-propelled pepper cannons now. I'm entirely fine with someone being able to field moderately answering force. If someone can show their license for it? I don't have a problem.

[Doc Randy]

I guess I am a bit more optimistic about the concept of government, our people, and my hope for the future.

Regardless... I have always felt that the greatest deterrent to tyranny was not force of arms, but strength of ideas and a free & independent press.

I still believe that the pen is mightier than the sword.

And... I think things are getting better - in a two steps up and one step back kind of way. I think the massive diffusion of media and the internet have helped democratize information. Yes, i recognize the new tools for propaganda and control that are abound in this information age, but I remain ultimately hopeful.

The day of armed insurrection or armed defense against tyranny in this nation seem to be over. That being said, I think the potential need for armed insurrection is also over - for the most part. Who knows... we may someday devolve into a Road Warrior type distopia. :)

[Barry Hollifield]

I have one pistol I keep at home for protection.With all the crazy stuff you read in the news, you never know what might happen.

[WinterRose]

I guess I am a bit more optimistic about the concept of government, our people, and my hope for the future.

Regardless... I have always felt that the greatest deterrent to tyranny was not force of arms, but strength of ideas and a free & independent press.

I still believe that the pen is mightier than the sword.

And... I think things are getting better - in a two steps up and one step back kind of way. I think the massive diffusion of media and the internet have helped democratize information. Yes, i recognize the new tools for propaganda and control that are abound in this information age, but I remain ultimately hopeful.

The day of armed insurrection or armed defense against tyranny in this nation seem to be over. That being said, I think the potential need for armed insurrection is also over - for the most part. Who knows... we may someday devolve into a Road Warrior type distopia. :)

Oddly, with our financial future in the toilet, and seeing more homogenization than diffusion in our media. (News Corp just bought the Wall Street Journal. Verizon and Time Warner service 95% of the nation's Cable TV and Internet, the pipelines by which we all remain informed of the world around us.) I remain hopeful, but see a bleaker picture.

Non-tinfoil hat wearing activists and theorists are postulating a major biological disaster of some sort to befall the human race this century. (We are WAY overdue.) Our economic situation as it stand, in its current structure will fail utterly in 20 years at present rates of spending. With continuing deregulation, fringe elements and 'unprofitable' people will continue to be marginalized, increasing the gap between the haves and have nots. Gen X, as we careen toward retirement age in about 20 to 30 years will find that there is no plan in place for our social security as it was for our parents. And that's not even taking into account ecological changes in our environment that we'll have do deal with like the icecap melt flooding coastal cities with increased storm activity like the shit that went down in New Orleans.

All in all, those of us that will be running the country, such as it will be in about 15 years will be about ready to show Gen Y and Z, plus every emo kid that ever cut on themselves the true meaning of discontent as things fall apart, and the center refuses to hold. And that's assuming there's NOT going to still be a war on for resources to benefit the very people exploiting the 99% of us that aren't actually in control of our country's resources.

It's a bleak picture. And we can all prepare and be ready to change it. We can think on ways to replace what is, with what will be. Consider the failures of what has gone before, and come up with a better way. We can talk all we want about how the world is going to go to shit. And we're all in the handbasket now, as far as that goes. But it's quite another exhilarating thing to consider that with complete failure of what is, we have the opportunity to forge an even MORE perfect nation to follow.

But it will not be won from the greed and power obsessed without struggle. They will fight tooth and nail to keep what they have. They will employ every trick, ploy and strategem with every bit of the power and vast resources they have at their command to keep the rest of us under their thumb so that the chaos at their gates doesn't sully them. And if it has to get bloody... well, look at our brave sons and daughters in the gulf dying for their profits today. I don't think those in power mind spending or spilling some of our blood on their behalf.

With that in mind as far as it goes with gun ownership? I'd like to hope we all have it in us to try and forge a utopia instead of devolve into dystopia. I want to believe that we're more fundamentally good than bad as a society, people and species. But to be certain, I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.

[Jason California]

I guess I am a bit more optimistic about the concept of government, our people, and my hope for the future.

Regardless... I have always felt that the greatest deterrent to tyranny was not force of arms, but strength of ideas and a free & independent press.

I still believe that the pen is mightier than the sword.

And... I think things are getting better - in a two steps up and one step back kind of way. I think the massive diffusion of media and the internet have helped democratize information. Yes, i recognize the new tools for propaganda and control that are abound in this information age, but I remain ultimately hopeful.

The day of armed insurrection or armed defense against tyranny in this nation seem to be over. That being said, I think the potential need for armed insurrection is also over - for the most part. Who knows... we may someday devolve into a Road Warrior type distopia. :)



Randy I tend to agree with your overall assesment. I think as a species we are getting better. I like to think we are on our way to a much better world. I just don't think we are there yet.

I don't own a gun at this time, however I feel comforted knowing that should I want one that options is there.

[RebootedCorpse]

Randy I tend to agree with your overall assesment. I think as a species we are getting better. I like to think we are on our way to a much better world. I just don't think we are there yet.

I don't own a gun at this time, however I feel comforted knowing that should I want one that options is there.

Your angry, drunk, moron of a neighbor also has that option.
Soo comforting.

[Ben]

I have one pistol I keep at home for protection.With all the crazy stuff you read in the news, you never know what might happen.Like shooting a loved one accidentally?

[Jay Wesson]

Just FYI, I like how Texas does things:

To get a concealed handgun license, you have to pass a criminal background check, pay $140 for a 5 yr. license + the cost of 14 hours of handgun safety training, pass the training, and pass a target shooting/reloading test. Once you're licensed, you can go straight in and buy a gun w/ no waiting period.

[Jay Wesson]

Your angry, drunk, moron of a neighbor also has that option.
Soo comforting.

Since he's drunk, he's liable to miss, and I'm target certified. :twisted:

[yeamon]

Just FYI, I like how Texas does things:

To get a concealed handgun license, you have to pass a criminal background check, pay $140 for a 5 yr. license + the cost of 14 hours of handgun safety training, pass the training, and pass a target shooting/reloading test. Once you're licensed, you can go straight in and buy a gun w/ no waiting period.

It would probably be impossible to determine the real statistic, since it requires an admission to breaking the law, but I would be curious to know, of the total number of residents of the great state of Texas who carry concealed weapons, how many of them actually bother to go through this process to get a license. I would also like to know, of the annual total of criminals prosecuted for crimes involving handguns, how many of them had a legal license to carry a concealed handgun, and purchased their weapon from a licensed firearm dealer.

[Jay Wesson]

It would probably be impossible to determine the real statistic, since it requires an admission to breaking the law, but I would be curious to know, of the total number of residents of the great state of Texas who carry concealed weapons, how many of them actually bother to go through this process to get a license. I would also like to know, of the annual total of criminals prosecuted for crimes involving handguns, how many of them had a legal license to carry a concealed handgun, and purchased their weapon from a licensed firearm dealer.

I tried Googling the statistics to add to the above post, but I couldn't find anything w/ my limited time. I'm in and out today, as I have a lot to do.

[Brian Defferding]

It would probably be impossible to determine the real statistic, since it requires an admission to breaking the law, but I would be curious to know, of the total number of residents of the great state of Texas who carry concealed weapons, how many of them actually bother to go through this process to get a license. I would also like to know, of the annual total of criminals prosecuted for crimes involving handguns, how many of them had a legal license to carry a concealed handgun, and purchased their weapon from a licensed firearm dealer.

According to Statemaster, Texas is 26th in the nation (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000) in firearm death rates per capita.

Another good link is here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state) It doesn't necessarily get the answers you're looking for, but it's a useful tool nontheless.

[Jason California]

Your angry, drunk, moron of a neighbor also has that option.
Soo comforting.

That is so absurd to me. He has not killed me yet. In fact most angry drunk neighbors don't kill their neighbors. It also stand to reason that said neighbor would try to kill me with whatever is at hand once he got it in his feeble mind.

Cars are potentially dangerous. People get trained to use them, as a result we don't see a rash of accidents everywhere we go.

[Ben]

That is so absurd to me. He has not killed me yet. In fact most angry drunk neighbors don't kill their neighbors. It also stand to reason that said neighbor would try to kill me with whatever is at hand once he got it in his feeble mind.

Cars are potentially dangerous. People get trained to use them, as a result we don't see a rash of accidents everywhere we go.What if cars were more likely to be in a car accident than to transport someone safely to their destination?

I've heard all kinds of stats about people being more likely to shoot a loved one than some thief. Seems like you'd be better off just getting a security system or a red Batman phone to the cops than a gun if you want to protect your family.

[Jason California]

What if cars were more likely to be in a car accident than to transport someone safely to their destination?

I've heard all kinds of stats about people being more likely to shoot a loved one than some thief. Seems like you'd be better off just getting a security system or a red Batman phone to the cops than a gun if you want to protect your family.

And for the most part they are idiots that never learned how to properly use a gun. Shit happens when you are ignorant. Guns ARE dangerous. People need to have this ingrained into them. Education will save the day.

Should I purchase a gun I am going to make sure that I have been educated on using it. It is a tool like any other.

[Stupendous Man]

I own a Remington 380. Its sweet. Do I need it? In all honesty, probably not. But i really like knowing that it's there. It's also a blast to take it to the range and squeeze off a few rounds. I'll be damned though if anybody tries to take it from me.

More gun control will only serve to take guns away from law abiding citizens. Bad people will do bad things regardless of the laws. They're bad people, It's kind of what they do.

[Dan-C]

if you want a shotgun for hunting or to protect your house, by all means.

If you need a semi-automatic uzi to protect your house, you don't need a gun, you need to move.

[Akira]

One of these days I will realize my dream of owning this in my garage

http://www.thepunisher.com/fan_weapons/DSC01443.JPG
http://www.thepunisher.com/fan_weapons/DSC01442.JPG
http://www.thepunisher.com/fan_weapons/DSC01464.JPG
http://www.thepunisher.com/fan_weapons/DSC01509.JPG
http://www.thepunisher.com/fan_weapons/DSC01507.JPG


All Airsoft of course