Right To Bear Arms,A lesson for liberals

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 4 2007, 05:59 PM) [snapback]455215[/snapback]</div>

Until you snap and want to take out the crowd of people, then it becomes a weapon, and you will be charged as using a weapon. Anything becomes a weapon when you use it as such.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 4 2007, 05:59 PM) [snapback]455215[/snapback]</div>

None of my firearms have ever shot or killed someone. This does not make them defective.

It still doesn't change the fact that murder, battery, rape, and assault are against the law, and that if someone wants to perform any of those crimes, which are the most horrible crimes that exist, some possession law is not going to deter them.

Murder is against the law. If you really wanted to deter crime using a weapon, you would add penalties for using that weapon in a crime. But the threat of punishment for murder already exists, and it doesn't deter people who are going to murder. Does murder with a different item make it any better or worse?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ Jun 4 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]455056[/snapback]</div>

They will not issue a carry permit for these.

Trust me, I've tried.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ Jun 4 2007, 05:23 PM) [snapback]455239[/snapback]</div>

It makes it harder.

Getting rid of firearms won't magically stop all crime, but it would make a dent in it, and you wouldn't have Virginia Tech or Columbine-style killings. This kind of thing is basically unheard of in Europe or the far east. I don't support getting rid of all weapons (I've enjoyed deer hunting personally and a little target practice), but handguns are not needed except by law-enforcement personnel. The hard part is there are already a lot of weapons in the street, and with a little maintenance they can last decades (unlike, say consumer electronics), so increasing the restrictions would have a long lag time before any effect could be determined. Gun buy-back programs are probably nearly as effective in the medium-term.

 

Well who would have thought a jetliner would slam into a building???

Can you think about how damaging it would be to hit an airliner coming into land or just taxiing and the panic. I said nothing about hitting it in the air or whatever. They are not guns that should be around cities nor are assault rifles and if you want evidence on assault rifles being used, dont do the ignorant definition thing either, just read the LA newspaper. You want it, I could care less but you cant have it in the city limits. That is cities that vote to not allow them.

God I hate this because I have always owned guns and been a little worried about controls and such until I have to listen to people tell me why it is their right to have automatics or close to. Tell you what - If you want one you get it and if it is stolen and used in a crime you get LIFE!!! Is it worth it to you?

God help the Police when all the bans get taken away.

1. Most legal owners cant afford some of the guns were talking about and
2. They are most helpful to criminals.

I have another one - If Law Enforcement says they dont care then I rescind my arguments and just shake my head and let it go. I am not the one on the border going against drug dealers, nor am I the one in LA going after gang members but I guess all of you know what that is like. I am not willing to argue with Law Enforcement guys why they dont know what they are talking about.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ Jun 4 2007, 11:43 AM) [snapback]455056[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreenFarmBoy @ Jun 4 2007, 07:11 PM) [snapback]455268[/snapback]</div>

I like you, GreenFarmBoy. You've made me smile in an otherwise crappy day. This is me while reading your post:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ Jun 4 2007, 05:23 PM) [snapback]455239[/snapback]</div>

I don't follow your reductionist reasoning. So you're saying there are only two alternatives: everyone gets guns, or none of us can drive a car?

There are degrees to how leathal something is. A gun is as leathal as they come, since that's how they were designed. To be leathal. So, no, it's not the same as a car.

But, yes, of course, murder is murder is murder.

That said, a gun is meant to kill. This is its purpose. Nothing you say will change the fact that guns are *different* than just about every other consumer product out there. This is its design function, as intended by its manufacturer.

Think of it this way: If my car was designed as a gun is (to be leathal) , it would --instead of bumpers-- have giant sharp pedestrian skewers on the front, and a matching one on the steering wheel aimed directly at my head.

Or, if a gun was designed *not* be leathal, it would have multiple trigger interlocks and shoot foam bullets.

Guns are specifically designed to make it EASY to kill. Cars aren't. Just 'cause you're responsible with your weapons is no guarantee that everyone else will be. This is what concerns me. I'm not so worried about you...it's the *other* people who *think* they know how to handle the responsibility.

Also, I really don't see how this would help law enforcement. Does this concern you?

------

RE: penalties for weapon usage in crimes: I think it's safe to say that most criminals don't sit around and ponder the potential sentence for a crime, then amend it appropriately if the pentalty for using a weapon is too great. Non-criminals think like this, but I don't think the bad guys do; they're not planning on getting caught.

-------

I wonder...why is it that we tend so easily to violence in the first place? Sometimes I think that, really, violence is the adult version of a child having a tantrum. Why is violence so 'okay' in this country? Why is it okay to glamourize it so in the movies...then tell us, in real life, that it's a no-no?

Also, I've heard it said that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent...and I often believe this to be true.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mojo @ Jun 4 2007, 03:36 AM) [snapback]454852[/snapback]</div>

mojo, these are excellent quotes that touch upon an important concern of our founding fathers. They knew the perils of government. (Sadly, they didn't know the perils of corporations.) And an armed populace made sense at a time when arming the populace with muskets put them on par with a government that had not much more than muskets itself. But those days are gone. Today, if our government turned on it's population, the only hope for the people is for it's military to align with that population and against that government. Modern muskets (automatic weapons, etc.) would do little to protect the population against tyranny in the era of Apache helicopters and Abrams tanks and B2 bombers. Providing the military aligns with that tyrant. (And I'm not convinced the 2007 American military would align with the populace.)

I am also a liberal who hunts and owns 2 guns. I even once fired an UZI at a controlled gun range. Quite cool-- and scary. Personally, I think responsible gun laws should allow responsible Americans to own nearly all the guns they want. But I feel that way out of a sense of personal freedom. The days of protecting against tyranny with a gun are over, at least in this country.

As for registering. The right to vote is in the Constitution, and we register to vote. I'm confused as to why gun ownership is more special than voting?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04 @ Jun 4 2007, 08:24 PM) [snapback]455336[/snapback]</div>

To help prevent voter fraud and to prevent people who are not allowed to vote from voting?

With some additional amendments to the Constitution, all non-felon American citizens are guaranteed the right to vote. Your local precinct can not "deny your right to vote" on a whim, thus overriding the Constitution. Many areas do override other parts of the Constitution. You either accept the Constitution, or you don't. It is a restriction on the government, clearly telling the government what it can't do. Houston could not veto the 1st Amendment within city borders, even with a popular vote, for example. Public schools are Constitution free zones though, which is a little scary, although understood since civics has virtually been ignored.

I would also argue that a non-uniform militia can put up a decent fight against a strong military.

I would also argue that today's military would be very hesitant to exercise its might against the US people. Those in the military are very much normal people who have family and friends who are civilians.

If anybody hasn't read them, I highly recommend The Federalist Papers, which clearly illustrates the founders thoughts on the limits of government, and the very real possibility of tyranny and how to prevent it.

Incidentally, the Constitutionality of a city or state being able to outlaw firearms might get struck down if the Washington DC case goes to the Supreme Court, which has traditionally been mum on the topic of the Second Amendment. DC might force the issue, much to the chagrin of other cities who have similar draconian laws. Watch for a flood of lawsuits if it does.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreenFarmBoy @ Jun 4 2007, 09:40 AM) [snapback]454988[/snapback]</div>

Excellent point!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 4 2007, 12:15 PM) [snapback]455085[/snapback]</div>

Better watch out: The NRA is going to come after you for opposing the right of the people to own anti-aircraft missiles!

 

*sigh*

Again, I feel I must reference this article. I find it hard to believe that now we could enact weapons bans and expect it to work. Once you do that, everyone capable of illegally acquiring a firearm will do so and no one will be able to defend themselves.

I DO NOT want anyone removing my right to defend myself from some lunatic who decides that my t.v. is just too tempting to pass up. I may not stop him from doing that, but what if he turns his attention on me? Or, even worse (and God forbid!) my wife?

The last thing I want is someone else's fear controlling me. I am controlled enough by my own fear; there is no reason someone else's fear should control me.

Here's food for thought: What happens if they do take away all our weapons? Have we forgotten how much we're not liked in this day and age?
And I cite these:

USS Cole (DDG-67)


Khobar Towers (circa 1996)


WTC, circa 1993:


I don't need to post any photos of the WTC, circa 2001.

So, we take away our guns, watch out. You will have every single terrorist cell in the world salivating at the prospect of an America with no teeth! Our military might is strong, yes; but I firmly believe that America's last line of defense will be her citizens that bear arms. Not that I ever expect to see an invasion; but then again, I never expected what I saw on that chilly September day back in 2001.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04 @ Jun 4 2007, 05:24 PM) [snapback]455336[/snapback]</div>

Well, you're wrong. The Minuteman's musket was no match for a 8 pounder fired from a ship, or a volley from a line of professional soldiers. We should have lost that war.

The deterrent effect is not because you rationally consider that your gun is bigger than theirs, but because you know their puny little .22 is just as capable as killing you as any other weapon. And while you're turning your .50 machine gun on its turret, some little Patriot could put one in the back of your head with a lucky shot from his bedroom window. An armed populace is much more likely to be free than one without any guns. Those who would trade security for safety end up getting neither.

The stats are all over the place, but if you consider them all, then you have to conclude that guns are a net positive for our society. The extrapolated incidents of crimes prevented by guns far outweigh the extrapolated incidents of crimes committed by guns.

The trick is to implement laws and regulations that will reduce the incorrect use of guns and crime overall. Determinate sentencing, extra time for having a gun in possession when you commit a felony, ex-cons going to jail for possession, automatic third strike provisions for use of a gun in a crime (25 to life) are all things we can probably agree on to reduce the improper use of guns.

Banning guns because they look a certain way, or because they hold more than 8 bullets, is nonsense and has no measurable effect.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Jun 5 2007, 12:23 AM) [snapback]455477[/snapback]</div>

Agree, our military would stand no chance against our armed populace. eventually even an apache helicopter or jet would have to land - and the prospect of facing those types of numbers and knowing how determined we would be would be deterent enough.

i guess that the current Venezualans would love to have had this amendment in place from the get-go now - dont you?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(prius04 @ Jun 4 2007, 07:24 PM) [snapback]455336[/snapback]</div>

The current state of our military action in Iraq should tell you that's not true. Besides, didn't you see Red Dawn?

 

Anually Maine has roughly 1.2 murders per 100,000 people and Louisiana has roughly 13 murders per 100,000 people. The gun laws are prety much the same in each state. Somehow I am forced to consider that factors other than gun laws are the key to improving the situation...

 

yes you can get Red Dawn on DVD

Interestingly enough when you look at the banned guns or guns that look a cretin way or that fire more than 8 rounds the restrictions are mostly on guns that are more wildly avalible or share similarities with ammunition.

Remember a gun is essentially worthless unless you have bullets to use in them.

Most of the gun ban laws are no to ban the guns. They are more like anti insurrection laws that ban the sales of common fired rounds and ammunition.

Consider two these situations

Armed conflict in the 18th and 19th century.
Calibers- All over the place in size and shape, and so long as you had a simple mold and some lead and a camp fire you could make as many rounds and you may need.
for a propellant, so long as you have enough charcoal, dried urine and sulfur you could make powder, or get it supplied or stole it. the powder was universal. Even captured bullets could be melted down to use as your own caliber, and in a pinch you could use nails, rocks etc, and war was very personal, you had to be able to see the other guy to kill them and fire rates were low 3 shots a min tops!

Armed conflict today.
Calibers all over the place but the organized fighting force has the advantage as soldiers today use common guns. no need to use enemy weapons, in fact its against the Geneva Conventions. You have a highly trained and skilled fighting force.
Insurrection side. Today if you woke up and we were occupied by a large professional army you would be disturbed but figure, ok, I have a gun. Lets pretend is not some obscure caliber hunting rifle but something as common as a .22.
Ok, how many rounds do you have? and if you went down to your local walmart how many rounds could you pick up? five thousand? twenty thousand, of course everyone else wants ammo too. There is always a shortage and no one thinks to stock up on rounds. Keeping in mind you can still get the stuff and our invaders dont control ammo now! of course they would

How many does our professional invader have? Millions, they can shoot all day, and anyone who has gone shooting knows bullets run out fast. Even when you have thousands of them. Most people in there closets right now may have a dozen or so shotgun shells, and maybe a couple hundred rounds of something else.

Not enough to spend years resisting, you cant depend on captured goods. you cant convert your goods and when you start shooting the rounds run out very fast. Some can manufacture there own but they are inferior to what else is out there still. Supplies run out.

This is all considering one would be able to survive more than a day of resistance as once you start shooting your will probably be found and shot back at with bigger guns quickly and wiped out.

Be a sniper you think, sure, you can annoy your enemy but even if you can kill a few solders here and there its not going to make them go away.

Take a look at how its working in Iraq. Every day they kill a few of us. and Everyday our population gets more and more sick of it. But its the political and corporate forces that keep us there. Despite that resistance we are going to be there for years.

So could the American population hold up against an invading force, or our own. Kinda, but not any better than the insurgency in Iraq, Kills would be made, but over all we would still be occupied, if your occupied technically you have lost and your just a resistance.

In such a situation one would be better off writing letters than using a gun, or causing supply problems over direct conflict.

Someone made the argument that they cant see a 2007 army turning on its population. Id like to believe it would not. But we did have an 1860 army that did just that based on differences in Ideas at the time. I had family members on both sides. And a lot of people died in that war. When it started it was supposed to be a 1 month war and quick and easy. once people started getting killed people got emotionally involved and it escalated to something horrible.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ozyran @ Jun 4 2007, 09:50 PM) [snapback]455421[/snapback]</div>

If the mess surrounding hurricane Katrina was not an example of this, I don't know what would be.

The only person responsible for my own safety is... me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jewelerdave @ Jun 5 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]455866[/snapback]</div>

Interesting information, but somewhere along the way, I missed the point. What are you saying?

If you're saying that the government and/or an invading force will not have to worry about an armed populace, I disagree. Just look at Janet Reno's Waco debacle. The government is not equipped to handle a revolt of the populace. The defection of most of the police force and National Guard in the US alone would prevent it. I guarantee you there are plenty of people and groups out there ready to defend this country against invaders and/or against homegrown tyranny.

 

Guns are necessary only because guns exist. (see: Prisoner's Dilemma applied to arms races) If we didn't invent guns, we'd all be defending (or debating) our right to bear swords. Ideally, we wouldn't have the right to bear arms because they didn't exist; however, since there is no way to 'bury' a technology short of replacing it with something better, we will always need (to defend) our right to bear arms.

 

I guess the point is that any armed populace is of course a concern of any invading force. But not powerful enough in this day and age to stop it or force it to leave.
Also if the civilian populace was the enemy in any modern military campaign its pretty hopeless if your that civilian population. The modern ways of killing massive amounts of people these days is not used often but is extremely efficient when used. And quite frankly quite scary when you look at what can be used even in conventional weaponry. It is because I saw what we are capable of is why I left the Air Force. The thought and knowledge of what I could do by pulling one trigger with the aid of a computer and being able to kill scads of people who could do nothing about the fact that I could kill them in a moments push of a button kind of bothered me. So I left that for someone else to do and now I make peoples wedding rings, a much happier thing to do!