Are you for or against Total Gun Abolition ?

[Error 404]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If deeply disturbed enough, they might even go and look up the term hypothetical in a dictionary, at which time they will just get angry......go get their gun and clean it.

Classic...gotta write this one down!!!

Great thougth my man.

BTW, we have beaten this subject to death in at least one past thread.

I haven't read this whole thread, but I can pretty much guess what has been said on both sides of the issue. And even by whom.

IMHO there is a reason "gun nuts" are refered to as NUTS.

But this argument will never cease. However Optional's thoughts on using the constitutionality of "the right to bear arms" is exactly right. This is just an excuse.

The kinds of "arms" that were available in the 18th century are irrelevant to what is "protected" by this "right". Even in NY City, which, as far as I know has the stricktest gun control laws in America, still, if you want to buy and own a black powder, muzzle loading firearm, you do not need a permit. It ain't the same thing as a 10mm auto pistol, or an assault rifle.

The law is archaic, and it's too bad it is used as an excuse. If there is a really good argument for gun ownership, it isn't the Constitution. Maybe there are other fine arguments to be made for having a right to own deadly weapons. But the Constitution argument is not one of them.

Sorry if I repeated anything already said in this thread. As I said, I just sort of jumped in and read only the last few posts. But glad I caught Optionals excellent post.

Peace,
RS

 

[hapaboy]

You are far too easily impressed.

Aside from arguing if the Constitution is being interpreted correctly, Optional as usual avoids the main issue - in this case, self-defense.

You should indeed read the rest of the thread. Whether or not that will affect your train of thought remains to be seen, but regardless, being impressed by Optional is cause for sincere sympathy.

 

[FRuiTY PeBBLe]

BIG EASY "NO" TO THIS QUESTION.....

yeah.....so... you take guns away from all the people who obey the laws..... but the bad guys will still find ways of getting them.......... ahh no...

 

[Error 404]

Quote from hapaboy:

You are far too easily impressed.

Aside from arguing if the Constitution is being interpreted correctly, Optional as usual avoids the main issue - in this case, self-defense.

I said quite clearly that there were other arguments for the right to own a gun.

My point was that using the Constitution is a joke.

You can argue all you want, and I myself have mixed feelings on the issue. I have had (and gotten rid of) guns. But Optional's point about the Constitutional basis is dead on. If you disagree, than that is fine. But I think it is a baseless and desperate argument.

Again, the Bill of Rights were written in a different time. I would venture to guess that even then, the founding fathers had limited use of "arms" in mind for the people in general as opposed to the military. I don't think (of course this is just a guess) that they expected the 2nd Amendment to entitle individuals to keep cannons on their front lawns. And they sure as shit did not conceive of assault rifles, automatic pistols, and cop-killer ammunition. (or the kinds of guns that if found by a 3 year old in your closet could result in tragedy, which happens all too frequently).

Peace,
RS

 

[hapaboy]

Quote from Error 404:



I said quite clearly that there were other arguments for the right to own a gun.

My point was that using the Constitution is a joke.

You can argue all you want, and I myself have mixed feelings on the issue. I have had (and gotten rid of) guns. But Optional's point about the Constitutional basis is dead on. If you disagree, than that is fine. But I think it is a baseless and desperate argument.

Again, the Bill of Rights were written in a different time. I would venture to guess that even then, the founding fathers had limited use of "arms" in mind for the people in general as opposed to the military. I don't think (of course this is just a guess) that they expected the 2nd Amendment to entitle individuals to keep cannons on their front lawns. And they sure as shit did not conceive of assault rifles, automatic pistols, and cop-killer ammunition. (or the kinds of guns that if found by a 3 year old in your closet could result in tragedy, which happens all too frequently).

Peace,
RS

Gee RS, I thought sure as shit that assault rifles, automatic pistols, and cop-killer ammunition are illegal!! I don't think anyone on this thread who supports the right to bear arms is saying such weapons should be legalized - I sure as heck am not.

As far as our founding fathers, I agree that they didn't envision William Joe Blow Carpenter having a cannon in his barn, but I do believe they were wholly in favor of a musket.

"Baseless and desperate"? You've got me confused with the tag team of...well, you know who.

And BTW, if outlawing guns makes for a safer place, Washington D.C. ought to be one of our nation's great examples of such a policy. Instead, we all know what a crime-infested area it is and that the homicide rate annually competes to be the highest in the nation.

 

[Error 404]

Quote from hapaboy:


Gee RS, I thought sure as shit that assault rifles, automatic pistols, and cop-killer ammunition are illegal!! I don't think anyone on this thread who supports the right to bear arms is saying such weapons should be legalized - I sure as heck am not.

Washington D.C. ought to be one of our nation's great examples of such a policy.

Hap,

Like I said, I did not read this whole thread. But a while back there was another similar thread, and it seemed a few guys wanted the opportunity to own whatever they wanted. Just because YOU are a generally reasonable person, there is a big difference between people who believe in the right to bear arms (and I am NOT saying I myself am not one entirely), and the real "gun nuts"....

Quote from WCOMtrader:

As for the firepower in question:

Picture this scenario, Im sitting home on a Tuesday night writting my post as I hear a commotion outside my house. I see three vans with muslim extremist attacking my neigborhood (and you know that could easily happen, I live in NY). They decide to run into my house and kill me/keep me hostage. If I have a 9mm I kill one or two. The other twenty will overpowerme finnally.

But what if, I had my fully-automatic machine gun with enough rounds to.... well enough rounds to kill three vans full of muslim terrorists. You better believe it. Fire untill I run out of ammo. Maybe if that wont save me from all of them, but I could take out at least 10.

Now lets say I had several grenades. I throw a few down the stairs and blow the brains out of the first f*ckr*rs. The rest I take out with my machine gun.

And if I had a bazooka, and saw them coming, I could fire straight out of the window taking out the better half.

And I am not bringing up an impossible situation. All it takes is 20 muslim f*cks to get together rent 3 vans from Uhaul and come down my street.

THAT IS WHY YOU MAY NEED FIREPOWER!!!!!!!!!

As for DC, you can say the same about any place with an un-evenlly balanced population living in poverty and ubran blight. And obviously, local laws don't stop the movement of firearms into an area. There are no customs stops when you travel state to state.

Remember John Hinkley?


Peace,
RS

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from Error 404:



Classic...gotta write this one down!!!

Great thought my man.

BTW, we have beaten this subject to death in at least one past thread.

I haven't read this whole thread, but I can pretty much guess what has been said on both sides of the issue. And even by whom.

IMHO there is a reason "gun nuts" are refereed to as NUTS.

But this argument will never cease. However Optional's thoughts on using the constitutionality of "the right to bear arms" is exactly right. This is just an excuse.

The kinds of "arms" that were available in the 18th century are irrelevant to what is "protected" by this "right". Even in NY City, which, as far as I know has the strictest gun control laws in America, still, if you want to buy and own a black powder, muzzle loading firearm, you do not need a permit. It ain't the same thing as a 10mm auto pistol, or an assault rifle.

The law is archaic, and it's too bad it is used as an excuse. If there is a really good argument for gun ownership, it isn't the Constitution. Maybe there are other fine arguments to be made for having a right to own deadly weapons. But the Constitution argument is not one of them.

Sorry if I repeated anything already said in this thread. As I said, I just sort of jumped in and read only the last few posts. But glad I caught Optionals excellent post.

Peace,
RS

Few people have well developed belief systems. By that I mean that most people adopted the belief systems of their parents or others, without building an entire construct for those beliefs themselves.

That is why it is so common to see the gun nuts position on other issues is nearly always the same.

Pro gun, anti abortion, born again Christian, pro death penalty, pro consumption of mass quantities of alcohol, anti drug, pro drilling for oil offshore--inland--wherever the fuck they can find it, anti environmental control, pro gas guzzling vehicles....etc., etc., etc.

It is all about control for so many of the right wingers.

I find it amusing that those who wear their faith in God on their sleeves, at the same time feel such an intense need to control their environment. Faith in God is intended to free up one from the need to control life, put it in God's hands, yet I see a country so fearful that we need to now have a policy of attack first just in case they might attack us in the future.

It is an uneducated, unsophisticated, and unenlightened bunch of cowboys that still roam this country, and still act and think just like daddy taught them to.

Whenever I try to have reasonable discussions with "Max Jr's" of the world, it becomes an exercise in futility, as their minds are closed off to actually thinking deeply on the subject. When a logical inconsistency is pointed out, the flame war starts.

The cookie cutter has already spit out the answers before the question is complete. No thought is given to the response, and withing seconds of receiving notification via email, a response is typed out and displayed for all to see.

And when it becomes obvious as to the holes in the argument, the hamster wheel spins faster and faster.

How Alexander Haig like, "As of now, I am in control here in the White House."

Typical right wing brain dead way of life:

"As of now, I am in control here in my own house, with my guns, my booze, my chew, and my woman...........oh, and my God."

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Quote from Error 404:



Hap,

Like I said, I did not read this whole thread. But a while back there was another similar thread, and it seemed a few guys wanted the opportunity to own whatever they wanted. Just because YOU are a generally reasonable person, there is a big difference between people who believe in the right to bear arms (and I am NOT saying I myself am not one entirely), and the real "gun nuts"....




As for DC, you can say the same about any place with an un-evenlly balanced population living in poverty and ubran blight. And obviously, local laws don't stop the movement of firearms into an area. There are no customs stops when you travel state to state.

Remember John Hinkley?


Peace,
RS

No doubt in D.C. there is the highest sense of powerless and anger among the impoverished, as they are surrounded by the most powerful and wealthy in this country all the time....with little to do but be their servants (or slaves---depending on your perspective).

There is no place like D.C. where the combination of power and powerlessness is so dramatic.

I recall many years ago when I visited D.C. how shocking it was to walk down the street going past a five star hotel to a slum next door to it. That may have changed by now, it was some 30 years ago, but it was clear that there was a huge gulf between the haves and the have nots.


Truly the extreme microcosm of all that is good and bad about our society is evident in D.C.

 

[Error 404]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:



...... it is so common to see the gun nuts position on other issues is nearly always the same.

Pro gun, anti abortion, born again Christian, pro death penalty, pro consumption of mass quantities of alcohol, anti drug, pro drilling for oil offshore--inland--wherever the fuck they can find it, anti environmental control, pro gas guzzling vehicles....etc., etc., etc.

It is all about control for so many of the right wingers.

I agree. The consistency of the views seems to defy any rational thought process. "Staunch" is such a great word.

RS

 

[trdrmac]

I have to wonder what the thoughts are of the US Army enforcing gun control on the Iraqi People. According to Fox news Iraq's citizens will have to get permits for weapons and concealed weapons will not be allowed.

Since this is the rebirth of a nation, it is as if we get to see what the "Founding Fathers" are thinking in 2003.

Any odds on the NRA taking up the plight of the Iraqi people?