40 Reasons for Gun Control

Originally posted by OHLC

The goal was to provide a safeguard against a political system not respecting the other amendments.
More...

This was the obvious intent of the framers.

The 2nd Amendment shares a common theme and purpose with every other provision in the Bill of Rights, namely, restriction of the power of the Federal Government. And when viewed in light of the then-recent founding of the country through armed rebellion by citizens against a tyrannical government, the only reasonable interpretation is that the right described is an individual one.

To assert that the 2nd Amendment applied instead to Federal armies is absurd, just an example of the selective interpretation AAA mentioned.

One can base a good argument against gun ownership on many reasons, but the 2nd Amendment isn't one of them.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/bill_of_rights/amendments_1-10.html
 
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."
— Thomas Jefferson


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."
— Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First U.S. Senate


"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA — ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the state."
— Heinrich Himmler


"We’ve made some progress in the last several years with the Brady Bill and some of the bans on assault weapons, but we have a lot of work to do."
— Hillary Clinton, ABC’s “Good Morning America” Jun 4, 1999
 
Originally posted by ArchAngel
rs7 -

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.

You're absolutely right, you don't need a fully automatic AK47 or Mac10 if a bugler 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.
More...

What you say is correct. Except that you may legally buy a copy of these assault rifles, then easily convert them to full automatic. It is one of those nonsense laws. You can buy the weapon. You can buy the kit. You just aren't supposed to put them together. Like pot in some states. You can have it. You just can't buy it or sell it or grow it:confused:

As for your 9mm with a laser sight....well I have an old Llama 9mm. I can't imagine using it for self defense and having the time to use a sight (let alone turning on a laser sight after checking that the batteries are good). You would need a pretty cooperative burglar.

Besides, for self defense, really, the shotgun is the ticket. And I don't think anyone is trying to control the sale or possession of them.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
An AR15 (semi-auto copy of the M16) is comparable to other .223 caliber rifles.
More...

I don't know what kind of ammunition the copies use. But I assure you that a military 5.56mm round from an M16 does far more damage than is ever necessary. A slug from a (non hollow point) 9mm or even a 45, (or even a 44 Magnum which is overkill and no fun to shoot anyway) is like getting hit with an arrow compared to getting hit with a military round. A hit in the shoulder will amputate an arm. And the victim will bleed to death virtually instantly. You can stop someone without assuring their death. I would rather put a 9 mm slug in a guys hip and see him rot in jail than to kill him on my doorstep. But I guess I am just soft.

I believe in the right to own a gun. I just think it should be regulated effectively. And just like I don't think there is a legitimate purpose to owning an assault rifle, I don't think there is a legitimate purpose for the manufacture or sale of those piece of shit "saturday night specials". I have fired them. They misfire, they miss, and the only excuse for them is they are cheap and disposable. Now what is a good reason for a cheap throwaway? Good for street gangs. Bad for us.

Peace,
:-)rs7
 
Originally posted by rs7






I believe in the right to own a gun. I just think it should be regulated effectively. And just like I don't think there is a legitimate purpose to owning an assault rifle, I don't think there is a legitimate purpose for the manufacture or sale of those piece of shit "saturday night specials". I have fired them. They misfire, they miss, and the only excuse for them is they are cheap and disposable. Now what is a good reason for a cheap throwaway? Good for street gangs. Bad for us.

Peace,
:-)rs7
More...

Why is it any of your business what kind of gun I own? There is nothing in the Second Amendment about having to prove a "legitimate purpose". There is nothing in there about "hunting and legitimate sporting uses" either, to bring up another cop out.

Honestly, you sound pretty reasonable and I don't doubt that your idea of proper gun regulation would be fair. But once we accept that, then we have to go along with Hilary Clinton's ideas too.
 
Originally posted by AAAintheBeltway


Why is it any of your business what kind of gun I own? There is nothing in the Second Amendment about having to prove a "legitimate purpose". There is nothing in there about "hunting and legitimate sporting uses" either, to bring up another cop out.

Honestly, you sound pretty reasonable and I don't doubt that your idea of proper gun regulation would be fair. But once we accept that, then we have to go along with Hilary Clinton's ideas too.
More...

Your point about the Second Amendment is true. But the stuff available now wasn't dreamed of in the 18th century. Who needs an automatic MAC 10 for anything other than a drive by shooting? Can't use it for hunting. Don't need it for self defense. Just seems to not make a lot of sense for any purpose other than as a military assault weapon. And anyone without a criminal record can join the military. So there ya go. Easiest way to get your hands on cool weapons.

I have no idea what Hilary Clinton's ideas are, nor am I interested. I figure whatever she wants, I want the opposite (excluding civil rights issues, and sex with women:)).
 
gun control means using both hands :D :D

its a controversial issue, but as a gun owner, i can tell you that they won't take mine from me. i own a 12 gauge, a few rifles and a 9mm. i am from the south where i have grown up with guns and gone hunting many times- its not that big of a deal unless you are a jackass. I'm a responsible citizen who uses my guns for sporting purposes only. there is nothing wrong with people like me owning guns, the problems stem from the crackheads and gangbangers killing each other on the streets with them. but, owning a gun protects me from people like that, if god forbid, one night i found someone inside my house trying to rob/ harm me. i don't think an outright ban on guns is the solution- criminals will still find a way to procure them while the innocent, law-abiding citizens would be unprotected.
 
I own a gun, and pity the fool that breaks in for my cheetos and second hand furniture.

That said, there are too many groups that stand behind the constitution for their individual liberties. We are a society, not an individual. If we are to progress as a society, everyone has to give a little.

The constitution was written 200 years ago, and frankly the world was a little different.

Child molesters get to keep their rights. Like posting computer generated images of children having sex on the internet. Our forefathers forgot to exclude the internet, so it should be a free for all.

Serial Killers have rights. On that note, if the rifle that that sick f*** in DC had been registered, maybe the police would have had a pool of suspects, and only 6 people would have died.
(This is an example, I know it is not that simple)

You don't know who is insane, criminal, or may snap in the future, and never will. Any more than you can walk down the street and tell who is gay, a rapist, murderer, tax cheat, Diabetic or Baptist. That is why I could care less if I had to register my gun, I'm not worried about me, Im worried about the other guy. And since I am statistically most likely to be killed by someone I know, not some random act of violence, it is the average Joe that I am the most worried about.

If everyone gives a little, we all benefit. Imagine how much prettier the country would be if everyone who saw a piece of trash laying in the parking lot just picked it up. Instead of saying "I didn't put it there." or "It's not my job."

But why give, the constitution doesn't require it.
 
Originally posted by AAAintheBeltway
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.
More...


are you stupid? because you sound stupid.
 
the bottom line you stupid asses is that you don't need that kind of firepower to protect yourself. you don't need mac 10s. you don't need bazookas. and you don't need surface to air missiles.

that's the point you morons. nothing about feminine liberals, or your mama, just common sense applied to an ever increasing dangerous world. duh.

we need restrictions placed on technology thats has as a sole purpose ...KILLING. is that so hard to grasp? duh.
 
Originally posted by NDQnCA
gun control means using both hands :D :D

its a controversial issue, but as a gun owner, i can tell you that they won't take mine from me. i own a 12 gauge, a few rifles and a 9mm. i am from the south where i have grown up with guns and gone hunting many times- its not that big of a deal unless you are a jackass. I'm a responsible citizen who uses my guns for sporting purposes only. there is nothing wrong with people like me owning guns, the problems stem from the crackheads and gangbangers killing each other on the streets with them. but, owning a gun protects me from people like that, if god forbid, one night i found someone inside my house trying to rob/ harm me. i don't think an outright ban on guns is the solution- criminals will still find a way to procure them while the innocent, law-abiding citizens would be unprotected.
More...

oh wow big man on campus here. "when they pry it from your cold dead hands"...right? hahaha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top