Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[RC_Sojourner]

Rather well actually. All the Taliban has had to do is wait us out. Guess who will be back in power a few years after we leave.

Quite.
Also, there was this article, in January of this year: counterjihadreport.com/2014/01/09/al-qaeda-controls-more-territory-than-ever-in-middle-east/

Now, as ISIS has had a dramatic rise and fall in Syria, this is probably a little outdated. Still, in 2014, the case could be made that Al Qaeda had never controlled as much territory as it had then. Very scary and sobering stuff.

 

[josh987654321]

I don’t consider myself pro-gun in the sense that it is some born in American right.

However, I do think that in some areas it is a really good idea to have a gun. I mean if I was a rancher I’d want a gun. Not as much for my protection, but to protect my livestock. If I lived in the middle of nowhere Alaska, I’d want a gun for my own protection. I’d like to point out that in these cases the concern is not another human, but wild animals.

I think someone who wants to hunt for food should have the right to have a rifle to do so (although a crossbow wouldn’t harm the meat as much).

Some guy in New York City, or other urban environment does not need a gun. The chances of them using for hunting are slim to none. You’d have better luck getting rid of a burglar with a table leg.

I agree.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t consider myself pro-gun in the sense that it is some born in American right.

However, I do think that in some areas it is a really good idea to have a gun. I mean if I was a rancher I’d want a gun. Not as much for my protection, but to protect my livestock. If I lived in the middle of nowhere Alaska, I’d want a gun for my own protection. I’d like to point out that in these cases the concern is not another human, but wild animals.

I think someone who wants to hunt for food should have the right to have a rifle to do so (although a crossbow wouldn’t harm the meat as much).

Some guy in New York City, or other urban environment does not need a gun. The chances of them using for hunting are slim to none. You’d have better luck getting rid of a burglar with a table leg.

The problem with that kind of reasoning is that we should not be recognizing only the rights of those whom someone else decides “needs” them.

Should we only allow people who demonstrate a “need” to read newspapers?
Should we only allow people who demonstrate a “need” to vote?
How about freedom of religion? Should we allow the government to restrict access to churches only to those who can demonstrate a need to the satisfaction of the government?

What if that “some guy in New York” simply likes to go to a range (a nice, safe one) once in a while for some target shooting? Does he have less rights than someone who lives on a 200 acre ranch?

 

[josh987654321]

The problem with that kind of reasoning is that we should not be recognizing only the rights of those whom someone else decides “needs” them.

Should we only allow people who demonstrate a “need” to read newspapers?
Should we only allow people who demonstrate a “need” to vote?
How about freedom of religion? Should we allow the government to restrict access to churches only to those who can demonstrate a need to the satisfaction of the government?

Okay. I believe the difference here is that you are not talking about weapons that are designed to kill other humans.

What is that “some guy in New York” simply likes to go to a range (a nice, safe one) once in a while for some target shooting? Does he have less rights than someone who lives on a 200 acre ranch?

Nope, but I believe his weapon should stay at the shooting range.

I believe it should be just like road rules, you can’t travel as fast as you would like, but you can go to a race track if thats what you wish to do.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I support Americans (or any adult on the planet) bearing arms equal to those the military has.

lol, even neuclear weapons?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Nope, Id be looking for a way out of that mess.

When your home is getting invaded, or someone wants to kill/rape your family, you don’t have time to look.

Also I am not advocating certain people voluntarily giving up their weapons, If I lived in a place with very lenient gun laws, I would probably own some of those guns for self defense, but if the laws were changed to criminalize those weapons for everybody, than I would be supporting that law.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Some guy in New York City, or other urban environment does not need a gun. The chances of them using for hunting are slim to none. You’d have better luck getting rid of a burglar with a table leg.

Comments like these identify perfect targets for criminals.

Yeah, a table leg. What if the robber has a gun? Are you going to tell him/her “what about gun control?”

This is why in part we have the right to bear arms.

 

[laircy]

I will have to be that weird, “thorough” option . PERSONALLY I hate guns because they are so loud, and I am terribly sensitive to loud sounds. But my dad owns a few and it’s good I guess.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

lol, even neuclear weapons?

Ok, I"ve had enough about the nuclear weapons strawman here.

We are Catholics, this is a Catholic forum. The Catholic Church believes in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Therefore, in the eyes of the Church, any nation which posesses nuclear weapons is acting immorally. It has the power to destroy millions of lives, indiscriminately. It has the power for chaos and terrible atrocities and genocide.

The Church opposes nuclear weapons, and we all should too.

The U.S. government is crossing the teaching of the Catholic Church in possessing nuclear weapons. Can’t stress that enough. This is a Catholic forum, and the Catholic Church is adamantly opposed to nuclear weapons, and very strongly supports their non-proliferation.

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson.

Do you believe these nations to be tyrannies? Because, it sounds like you fear them, as I do.

Can you accept a government whose power you fear?

What I’m getting at is this… Does pro-gun or antigun sentiment simply boil down to a fight or flight response?

It sounds like perhaps, there might be some agreement on this thread, that a government with nuclear weapons is a government verging on tyranny. It has the power to destroy millions of lives, and we are helpless to stop it (firearms or no). Yes? Do we agree on this?

 

[RC_Sojourner]

I will have to be that weird, “thorough” option . PERSONALLY I hate guns because they are so loud, and I am terribly sensitive to loud sounds. But my dad owns a few and it’s good I guess.

I’m glad I made it, then.

 

[meltzerboy]

Actually, google “Kennesaw, Georgia”. Kennesaw Georgia is a town which recently passed a law making gun ownership mandatory. They copied the law of Nelson, Georgia, which has had a similar law on its books since 1982.

Neither statute is enforced, but they are on the books. Therefore, Quill and Sword’s opinion is shared by at least two Georgia townships. If Quill and Sword wanted to try and change the law in his municipality in order to require that gun ownership be mandatory… it would not be unprecedented.

Thanks for the information. But what may work in a township would be difficult, to say the least, in a large urban center such as New York City or Chicago.

 

[josh987654321]

Ok, I"ve had enough about the nuclear weapons strawman here.

My apologies, It’s my attempt at showing how weaponry is constantly advancing and becoming capable of more and more destructive power, so my question would be, If it were up to you RC Sojourner, may I ask, where would you darw the lines on gun control? may I ask what kind of gun control you would like to see if any?

We are Catholics, this is a Catholic forum. The Catholic Church believes in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Therefore, in the eyes of the Church, any nation which posesses nuclear weapons is acting immorally. It has the power to destroy millions of lives, indiscriminately. It has the power for chaos and terrible atrocities and genocide.

The Church opposes nuclear weapons, and we all should too.

The U.S. government is crossing the teaching of the Catholic Church in possessing nuclear weapons. Can’t stress that enough. This is a Catholic forum, and the Catholic Church is adamantly opposed to nuclear weapons, and very strongly supports their non-proliferation.

I agree, but I have heard many people say “Weapons don’t kill people, people kill people.” So may I ask why that defense wouldn’t work when it comes to neuclear weapons?

I believe that not every man should have the right to keep and bear arms, because weaponry I believe is getting to the stage where some men should not have the right to weild that kind of destructive power, so I believe lines need to be drawn.

Absolute freedom mocks at justice. Absolute justice denies freedom. To be fruitful, the two ideas must find their limits in each other. - Albert Camus

“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.” - Thomas Jefferson.

Good quote.

May I ask what happens when people fear their very neighbours? I believe the government will fear the people so long as the people are the ones who decide who is in government.

Do you believe these nations to be tyrannies? Because, it sounds like you fear them, as I do.

I tend not to think about it a great deal. But one thing is for sure, if war does break out again with the likes of WWII in this day and age, it will be something new altogether. I believe if war ever broke out among the neuclear world … heaven help us, we shouldn’t be in the mindset of ‘preparing’ for that, but rather ‘preventing’ that I believe.

Can you accept a government whose power you fear?

I believe that’s why we are not living in dictatorships.

What I’m getting at is this… Does pro-gun or antigun sentiment simply boil down to a fight or flight response?

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean here, by the way I am not completely anti gun and I am not pro gun either, I believe there is a balance to be had and I very much like Australia’s laws.

It sounds like perhaps, there might be some agreement on this thread, that a government with nuclear weapons is a government verging on tyranny. It has the power to destroy millions of lives, and we are helpless to stop it (firearms or no). Yes? Do we agree on this?

Yea, that’s why I believe something like ‘The Patriot’ will never happen and thus there is no need to prepare yourselves for something like that.

I mean, if we still had the weapon technology that Thomas Jefferson had in his day and age, than I would be all for the right for every American to keep and bear arms, but the weaponry is far too advanced for that nowdays I believe, the destructive capabilities of these weapons falling into the wrong hands are too great nowdays I believe, so with greater power comes greater responsibility I believe.

Just like the faster and more powerful vehicles become, the greater need there is for road rules.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Faithdancer]

I won’t poll as in Australia it is illegal to own a gun unless you are police or have a permit because you are an armed guard. Works well. If you get caught with a gun we know you are a criminal, and you get locked up. Of course criminals do use guns but mainly amongst themselves, so if someone is shot you can be pretty certain they have been mixing with the wrong types.
If war ever comes we know where we can get a lot of them very quickly.

Petaro, do you know if all handguns are prohibited or just semi-automatics? Also, what about rifles and shotguns?

 

[Faithdancer]

I own five guns at present, soon to be six. All are legally purchased and registered. Two are lever action, “Western-style” rifles, three are revolvers (two Western style, single action, one double/single action snubnose for self defense) and the last one is a Ruger semiautomatic.

I take responsible gun ownership very seriously. I have taken a basic firearms safety course, practice regularly at the range, am working toward my concealed carry permit and will continue to take classes even after that. I do not carry my weapons in my car to work as I work for the public schools and it is a crime to have firearm in one’s vehicle even iif it is unloaded and locked and in the trunk. I would defend students with my life and if the school districts asked me to carry concealed on campus, I would. However, since they haven’t and aren’t likely to I leave my firearms at home. I obey the law!

I have no interest in owning an assault-type rifle although they are very popular, chambered for NATO rounds. I am a member of the Single Action Shooting Society and may do a competition someday, just for fun. Although I ride as well and there is a competition division for mounted shooters, I don’t aspire to that!

I do think that, rather than stating the poll choices as “pro-gun,” they should have read, “pro-2nd Amendment,” since that is what at stake. I will also add that, once we start tinkering with the Bill of Rights it is a very, very slippery slope.

 

[Faithdancer]

Asking someone if they are pro or anti gun is like asking someone if they are pro or anti hammer, shovel, or car. It’s a tool.

That was one of my points as well, OCG. It would have been more insightful, perhaps, to ask if we are pro- or anti- the right to keep and bear arms. However, I respect and thank the OP for creating this thread and hindsight is wonderful.

 

[Faithdancer]

It is just about impossible for a civilian to own an Assault Rifle, as those are, by definition, capable of fully automatic fire.

It IS possible to purchase rifles that are similar in physical appearance, but do not have the military specifications.

Yes, and that’s what I meant in my post by “assault-type.” These weapons are essentially semi-automatic and have limitations on magazine capacity. I have a relative that owns one and they are quite popular at the range. My rifles are Henry Big Boys, hold 10 rounds each and are single action- definitely not assault type rifles!

 

[Petaro]

Forgive me, but isn’t Australia a place where almost every living creature there can kill human beings?

I had a friend visit Australia, and he told me that, “Not only can everything here kill you, they WANT to kill you, too.”

It seems rather daft to be unable to own a gun in such a dangerous place. Don’t you think owning guns could help people survive down there?

OK Let’s not get carried away here. It is true that all snakes have to assumed to deadly poisonous, especially the Black, Brown, red bellied black, Taipan and most others. Sure most of our spiders are deadly too including the Funnel Web, both Sydney and Blue Mountain variety that are across the continent and the tiny red back little bigger than the tick; which of course also can kill if you don’t get them in time.
Mosquitoes do carry malaria, Japanese Encephalitis Dungee and Ross River Fever.
Our salt water crocks will kill you with one snap of their jaws but they are a protected species along with the Dingoes, which only kill small children, and the protected Flying foxes that carry the fatal and incurable Hydra virus.(There are 40,000 of these protected animals in Charters Towers, a small town alone.)
In the water, we have the many many species of shark from the bronzed whaler; to the hammer head; Sandtiger; reef; Mako;Great White and bull varieties. They kill many a happy surfer, but they are nothing to the stone fish that look like a stone on the bottom of the sand, but kill in minutes in extreme agony if stepped on.
There are of course the blue ringed octopus that kills in minutes and the great man of war jellyfish whose tendrils can float for miles.
Of more concern is the irukandji jellyfish that is so small you don’t notice it until you hit one of its tiny tendrils and are dead within seconds. These are slowly moving down the coast due to the warmer currents. Most people don’t swim for a large part of the year in northern Queensland.
But the things that kill are normally so small and numerous that guns do not help.
We consider surfing one of the most dangerous of sports but that is why we are such a fearless nation, and unfortunately so few in this vast paradise.
Don’t believe a word about the fictional drop bears that fall on you from the trees and suck your blood dry before you can cry out. (They are only in the outback.)

 

[Petaro]

Petaro, do you know if all handguns are prohibited or just semi-automatics? Also, what about rifles and shotguns?

All hand guns are prohibited, but farmers are allowed rifles but not semi-automatic or what you would consider assault rifles.

 

[Phalanx]

I am anti-gun and not a gun owner.

If i was to move to a city where nine out of ten of the population were gun owners. I would still not get a gun.

 

[Phalanx]

All hand guns are prohibited, but farmers are allowed rifles but not semi-automatic or what you would consider assault rifles.

Whoa… I have never even thought about that Australia has farmers… Poor souls, having your previous post in mind I wouldn’t be surprised if they attached flamethrowers and fail-safe nuclear warheads onto their scarecrows