40 Reasons for Gun Control
- Thread starter Snake Plisken
- Start date
Bung,
Sorry you didn't like the list. The most interesting part of your post was when you said you didn't read the whole list. Typical Democrat, won't admit when something isn't working, whether it's welfare, education, or crime. Gun control would probably work if only we spend a few more million, right?
I realize there are a few Democrat politicians who are not anti-American and support the Constitution(imagine that), but they are few in number. Don't get me wrong, I have some problems with Republicans. I voted Libertarian today, and I hope you all did too. Uh, oh! Did I just say "you all"? Maybe I am a redneck.
Here's an excellent article about the "success" of gun control in Europe.
www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
Snake
Sorry you didn't like the list. The most interesting part of your post was when you said you didn't read the whole list. Typical Democrat, won't admit when something isn't working, whether it's welfare, education, or crime. Gun control would probably work if only we spend a few more million, right?
I realize there are a few Democrat politicians who are not anti-American and support the Constitution(imagine that), but they are few in number. Don't get me wrong, I have some problems with Republicans. I voted Libertarian today, and I hope you all did too. Uh, oh! Did I just say "you all"? Maybe I am a redneck.
Here's an excellent article about the "success" of gun control in Europe.
www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml
Snake
i would not be unhappy in the least if guns were eradicated from the face of the earth. guns are a worthless, useless and dangerous technology and exist for one purpose only ...TO KILL!
the problem is they are too readily available now. take gun rights away now and what have you for protection from those with criminal intent?
the problem is they are too readily available now. take gun rights away now and what have you for protection from those with criminal intent?
Ditto Bung!
Now I know the constitution says we have a right to bear arms. So they were thinking about musket loading rifles (which, btw, I think you can still buy without a license even in the strictest gun control jurisdictions).
But a robber comes to your door, do you really need an AK47?
What is an appropriate venue in whiche to use a Mac-10?
How about having your own little nuclear device in case your neighbors try to take your house under siege? What is a reasonable weapon to be allowed to "bear"?
You shoot someone, they can only die once.
When they had the national guard kids at the airports until recently, they were carrying M-16s. I couldn't help but wonder what would have happened if one was fired inside an airport corridor.
All men are created equal. All guns are not. Should they be treated as if they were?
Just my $.02. Can't wait to see the reactions (reactionary?) from some of my "friends" here (maybe even those with a 401 suffix)
.Peace
Rs7rs7 -
You've missed the point - all guns are NOT treated as equal right now.
AK47s and Mac10s and M16s and any other fully automatic capable weapon are ALREADY illegal unless you have a Federal Class III license.
There are semi-automatic copies of them available - but they're basically like other rifles or pistols. People who are afraid of such guns because of their looks, miss the point completely. A semi-automatic Mac10 look alike is just a .45 caliber pistol. An AR15 (semi-auto copy of the M16) is comparable to other .223 caliber rifles.
You're absolutely right, you don't need a fully automatic AK47 or Mac10 if a burgler breaks into your house - my 9mm semi-auto pistol with the laser sight will work just fine. If not, then it's time to rack the 12 gauge loaded with slugs.
You've missed the point - all guns are NOT treated as equal right now.
AK47s and Mac10s and M16s and any other fully automatic capable weapon are ALREADY illegal unless you have a Federal Class III license.
There are semi-automatic copies of them available - but they're basically like other rifles or pistols. People who are afraid of such guns because of their looks, miss the point completely. A semi-automatic Mac10 look alike is just a .45 caliber pistol. An AR15 (semi-auto copy of the M16) is comparable to other .223 caliber rifles.
You're absolutely right, you don't need a fully automatic AK47 or Mac10 if a burgler breaks into your house - my 9mm semi-auto pistol with the laser sight will work just fine. If not, then it's time to rack the 12 gauge loaded with slugs.
Snake,
Chuck Heston is proud of you, and so am I.
The argument against gun control is like most liberal arguments. It is based totally on feelings, not fact or logic. Guns make the typical feminized liberal uncomfortable. If a liberal doesn't like something, all that "tolerance" stuff gets forgotten pretty damn quick. They can "clearly" see a constitutional right to an abortion guaranteed in the invisible ink section of the constitution but have a million reasons why the Second Amendment doesn't really exist. That's what they call a living constitution. The parts they don't like they just prune off.
Their favorite argument: "You have to register a car, so how can you be against registering guns?" Well, I don't have to register a car if I keep it in my back yard , only if I take it on the street. Among the things liberals object to being registered are sex offenders, illegal aliens, convicted felons, minors getting abortions without parental knowledge, drug addicts, communists, HIV carriers and rioting demonstrators. Why do they object? Because they see it as dangerous for the government to have and be able to use personal data about individuals. How I choose to protect my home and family is about as personal as it gets. The right to defend oneself, one's family and one's property is basic to liberty. It is immoral to deny that right to a law-abiding citizen.
A good way to evaluate gun control laws or proposals is to ask yourself: "Does this law potentially make criminals of law abiding citizens?" Thus, registration laws fail the test. Enhanced penalties for using a gun in a crime do not.
Chuck Heston is proud of you, and so am I.
The argument against gun control is like most liberal arguments. It is based totally on feelings, not fact or logic. Guns make the typical feminized liberal uncomfortable. If a liberal doesn't like something, all that "tolerance" stuff gets forgotten pretty damn quick. They can "clearly" see a constitutional right to an abortion guaranteed in the invisible ink section of the constitution but have a million reasons why the Second Amendment doesn't really exist. That's what they call a living constitution. The parts they don't like they just prune off.
Their favorite argument: "You have to register a car, so how can you be against registering guns?" Well, I don't have to register a car if I keep it in my back yard , only if I take it on the street. Among the things liberals object to being registered are sex offenders, illegal aliens, convicted felons, minors getting abortions without parental knowledge, drug addicts, communists, HIV carriers and rioting demonstrators. Why do they object? Because they see it as dangerous for the government to have and be able to use personal data about individuals. How I choose to protect my home and family is about as personal as it gets. The right to defend oneself, one's family and one's property is basic to liberty. It is immoral to deny that right to a law-abiding citizen.
A good way to evaluate gun control laws or proposals is to ask yourself: "Does this law potentially make criminals of law abiding citizens?" Thus, registration laws fail the test. Enhanced penalties for using a gun in a crime do not.
Originally posted by rs7
Now I know the constitution says we have a right to bear arms. So they were thinking about musket loading rifles (which, btw, I think you can still buy without a license even in the strictest gun control jurisdictions).
But a robber comes to your door, do you really need an AK47?
What is an appropriate venue in whiche to use a Mac-10?
How about having your own little nuclear device in case your neighbors try to take your house under siege? What is a reasonable weapon to be allowed to "bear"?
Just my $.02. Can't wait to see the reactions (reactionary?) from some of my "friends" here (maybe even those with a 401 suffix)
Peace
Rs7, do you believe free speech only applies when people write with feathers and ink or that it also applies to the internet ?
Same thing for the muskets.
The goal was to provide a safeguard against a political system not respecting the other amendments.
A safeguard that suppose the average joe has access to the same weapons as the average soldier. Today it would be a M-16.
This is the equivalent in purpose to the ancient muskets, just like the internet is an equivalent to writing pamphlets with a feather and ink.
Hence, the populace as a whole can keep any political entity in check.
Of course, the 2nd was not meant as a right for one guy to threat on the whole community with a nuclear device.
Just like 200 years ago, the average joe was not keeping heavy cannons.
>>What is a reasonable weapon to be allowed to "bear"?
Same thing as the average soldier/LEO, in my opinion.
Hope this is not too reactionnary...
OHLC401
BTW, from an historical viewpoint, we have quite a few examples
of inbalances between the citizens and political entities :
-the Turkish genocide (the Turks disarmed the Armenian, then genocided/deported them)
-the Red Khmer genocide (Pol Pot and his harcore communist militias disarmed the urban citizens, and genocided them)
-the Nazi genocide (disarming the Jews, the rest is well know)