Are you pro-gun, or anti-gun?

[Annie39]

There are some marginal controls, but in a lot of places you can buy and own anything from a handgun up to an assault rifle with Teflon bullets. I do not consider that to be sufficient in regards to laws governing such things are firearms.

If you were the absolute ruler of America how much gun control would you impose on the country? How would you go about implementing your law?

Annie

 

[LongingSoul]

I would not make a comparison between Australia’s gun laws and our right to own arms as guaranteed by our constitution. We have a history of a tyrant (King George) attempting to confiscate our weapons. For that reason the 2nd amendment was codified otherwise many at the Constitutional Convention would have walked out the door.

Lots of countries have history with England… hundreds of years ago. There is a psychological phenomenon where an abused child becomes trapped in a stage of development as a self preservation thing and then as they physically mature, they continue to perceive threat as if they were still that vulnerable child.

They develop a sense of entitlement based on the perspective of that immature victim even though they have well outgrown that genuinely helpless state. Sadly, many of these people become abusers themselves, still percieving that they are under some threat from a monster.

The United States is the most powerful country on earth. Their military firepower, their defense spending, manpower, weapons power, is far in advance of their nearest power neighbour. The United States has the capacity to walk into any country they want and do what they like. It is not a new little nation at risk from the tyrants of England.

Here are some statistics on US global might…

globalfirepower.com/

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

pnewtonI do not understand your reasoning. You compare gun control with abortion when they are morally as different as two issues can be.

Both issues are about preservation of life. Regarding self defense, threatening one life to preserve another is not preservation of life. It is simply a shell game. One life rater than another.

Yes, more than one person has the opinion the controls are insufficient on weapons today. However, when it comes to what exactly is the right way to control, there are as many opinions as there are people.

Well, right ow there are very few controls, and the outcome of this is clearly unacceptable.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

If you were the absolute ruler of America how much gun control would you impose on the country? How would you go about implementing your law?

Annie

Good afternoon Annie:

If this were made my responsibility, I would make it illegal to** manufacture **guns outside of a federal, state or local government contract for military or law enforcement purposes. The penalty for **selling or purchasing **guns outside of these parameters would result in seizure of one’s home and belongings and auctioning them off, with the proceeds going in some percentage to medical research and some percentage to public education. Eventually, people would find productive ways to spend their time and money. Until they learn to do so, at least humankind would have leveraged the ignorance of some to the benefit of many.

That said, I am not the ruler of America, nor am I in control of other people’s lives. To that end, it is the duty of every living being to seek it’s own level. Being a part of the cycle of violence is not the level I am on, however, I understand that people naturally seek what level they need to be on, and for each person this is different.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Annie39]

Good afternoon Annie:

If this were made my responsibility, I would make it illegal to** manufacture **guns outside of a federal, state or local government contract for military or law enforcement purposes. The penalty for **selling or purchasing **guns outside of these parameters would result in seizure of one’s home and belongings and auctioning them off, with the proceeds going in some percentage to medical research and some percentage to public education. Eventually, people would find productive ways to spend their time and money. Until they learn to do so, at least humankind would have leveraged the ignorance of some to the benefit of many.

That said, I am not the ruler of America, nor am I in control of other people’s lives. To that end, it is the duty of every living being to seek it’s own level. Being a part of the cycle of violence is not the level I am on, however, I understand that people naturally seek what level they need to be on, and for each person this is different.

Thank you,
Gary

There are already guns in the hands of private citizens. How would you deal with that?

Annie

 

[pnewton]

Both issues are about preservation of life. Regarding self defense, threatening one life to preserve another is not preservation of life. It is simply a shell game. One life rater than another. .

Gun ownership does not equate to threatening one’s life. For that matter threatening life does not equate to taking life.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

There are already guns in the hands of private citizens. How would you deal with that?

Annie

Good Evening Annie:

I would give people 36 months to turn them in for the cash value of the weapon. Then the weapons would be destroyed. 12 months after the 36 month deadline, I would enforce the seizure laws for anyone caught with an assault weapon. The laws would apply to the property on which they were found. If found in the offenders car, the car is seized. If it’s their home, the home is seized. If found on the offenders person in public and not in or on the offenders property, then it’s a $50,000 fine to be taken from the offender’s paychecks at a rate of 15% until the fine is paid. If the offender is unemployed, then a job would be provided on a highway crew at a rate of $20 an hour, and all public assistance that the offender might be collecting would be cut off.

Now, this is what I would do if I were tasked with solving gun violence, as a job assignment as “Ruler of America” as you called it in your hypothetical question. It is not necessarily what I would do based on my own choice. In real life, I am rather disinclined to interfere with natural selection.

Thank you
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Gun ownership does not equate to threatening one’s life. For that matter threatening life does not equate to taking life.

Good Evening Pnewton:

Every object has a potential. The most notable potential of a gun is to destroy something, whether it be a paper target, a tin can, a beer bottle or a life. What is the benefit of maintaining an instrument that offers nothing but varying levels of harm, and otherwise cannot be worn, eaten, lived in, used to cure something, used to build something or used to fix something, doesn’t taste good, feel good, quench thirst, express love, advance knowledge or provide transportation to anyplace but an emergency room or a morgue?

Now, all this considered, I understand that no matter how senseless I think something might be, there will always be people who disagree with the logic I have been offering. The challenge would be to convince me as to why I should agree with them.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[pnewton]

Good Evening Pnewton:

Every object has a potential. The most notable potential of a gun is to destroy something, whether it be a paper target, a tin can, a beer bottle or a life. What is the benefit of maintaining an instrument that offers nothing but varying levels of harm…

The potential also exists to destroy one who is threatening evil.

As to convincing you, I see no need to. There is no moral imperative to own a gun and many good reasons one would choose not to. I will not defend gun ownership because I do not think it wise most of the time. It is only the right to own a gun I think needs to be upheld, at least in the foreseeable future.

 

[DianePa]

Lots of countries have history with England… hundreds of years ago. There is a psychological phenomenon where an abused child becomes trapped in a stage of development as a self preservation thing and then as they physically mature, they continue to perceive threat as if they were still that vulnerable child.

They develop a sense of entitlement based on the perspective of that immature victim even though they have well outgrown that genuinely helpless state. Sadly, many of these people become abusers themselves, still percieving that they are under some threat from a monster.

The United States is the most powerful country on earth. Their military firepower, their defense spending, manpower, weapons power, is far in advance of their nearest power neighbour. The United States has the capacity to walk into any country they want and do what they like. It is not a new little nation at risk from the tyrants of England.

Here are some statistics on US global might…

globalfirepower.com/

This is not about global might but the U.S. Citizen’s RIGHT.
Every tyrant that came to power in the last century made the confiscation of arms a priority. No means to confront the tyrant when unarmed. The people in the Warsaw ghetto learned that lesson first hand.
The idea of having our 2nd amendments ‘right to bear arms’ was clearly explained by Thomas Jefferson, one of our founders. It allows the people to have the means to answer the threat themselves by another’s aggression whether it be a person, their government or others. Fact: it is accepted that the one thing that prevented any attempt by the Japanese after Pearl Harbor from invading the mainland of the U.S. was the fact that too many of our people bore arms and would answer the threat.
To compare those who founded this nation to vulnerable children is an insult. I am a grown woman and I will not be denied my right to protection as specified in our constitution whether that protection requires a gun, a knife and even a crossbow. Cars kill more people than guns, knives and other weapons so why not ban cars and go back to the horse and buggy. Oh forgot, they too killed people so we would have to ban them as well.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Busy week with shootings. Here’s the Chicago weekend activity?

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chicagotribune.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fbreaking%2Fchi-20-shot-chicago-violence-20140607%2C0%2C2266116.story&ei=CkmUU9PtENaVqAal74LAAg&usg=AFQjCNFQd9gHp_4xFv1X9dxqRA2YH1ZOAQ

 

[DianePa]

Busy week with shootings. Here’s the Chicago weekend activity? QUOTE]

Keep in mind that Chicago, not unlike cities like NYC, D.C., and Detroit have some of the most restrictive gun laws. Seems the crimminals use the guns to advance their agenda’s wheresas those who simply want to own a gun for protection are restricted. Might as well put a target on the back of an innocent.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

DianePa;This is not about global might but the U.S. Citizen’s RIGHT.
Every tyrant that came to power in the last century made the confiscation of arms a priority. No means to confront the tyrant when unarmed. The people in the Warsaw ghetto learned that lesson first hand.

Good Morning Diane: Actually the National Socialist regime (Nazis) lifted all restrictions on the ownership of firearms in 1938, and prior to that they of course ignored the existing laws imposed on Germany at the end of the First World War regarding the importation of guns. German citizens were not denied the right to own guns. Guns were in fact taken from Jews, however, this action was imbedded in the overall policy of taking everything that Jews owned. Moreover, Jews were only two percent of the overall population, and very few of them owned guns in the first place. If every Jew in Germany (or Poland for that matter) owned a gun and used guns for resistance, they would simply have died sooner.

The idea of having our 2nd amendments ‘right to bear arms’ was clearly explained by Thomas Jefferson, one of our founders. It allows the people to have the means to answer the threat themselves by another’s aggression whether it be a person, their government or others.

Jefferson was a framer of the Constitution at a time when the United States was a wilderness frontier for the most part, and a firearm was a single shot flint lock musket that took a good deal of time and skill to load and even more skill to hit something with it. If AK47’s and AR17’s that could take out hundreds of people in a few minutes existed at the time, Jefferson would have ensured that you wouldn’t have the right to own one. He was a progressive liberal.

Fact: it is accepted that the one thing that prevented any attempt by the Japanese after Pearl Harbor from invading the mainland of the U.S. was the fact that too many of our people bore arms and would answer the threat.

Actually, the fact is that the Japanese were unable to entertain serious notions on invading the US homeland because of the transport issues that attended having a good portion of their fleet destroyed at Midway, having their over extended military resources tied up in defending the Philippines and other islands of the Asia Pacific region, the loss of Guam, Okinawa and Iwo Jima, diminished fuel and material resources, and the extensive land mass of the United States.

To compare those who founded this nation to vulnerable children is an insult. I am a grown woman and I will not be denied my right to protection as specified in our constitution whether that protection requires a gun, a knife and even a crossbow. Cars kill more people than guns, knives and other weapons so why not ban cars and go back to the horse and buggy. Oh forgot, they too killed people so we would have to ban them as well.

Cars have a practical use other than killing, and guns do not. They are a modern day necessity and guns are not, unless you have shooting something on your agenda. Moreover, to acknowledge that people die by one means is hardly is hardly cause to add another means.

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

GaryTaylor;12065902:

Busy week with shootings. Here’s the Chicago weekend activity? QUOTE]

Keep in mind that Chicago, not unlike cities like NYC, D.C., and Detroit have some of the most restrictive gun laws. Seems the crimminals use the guns to advance their agenda’s wheresas those who simply want to own a gun for protection are restricted. Might as well put a target on the back of an innocent.

Good Morning again Diane:

I am offering the idea that Chicago, NY, Detroit and DC are all troubled urban environments that are rife with the problems attended by the poor, such as gangs, educational challenges, and a myriad of other issues including a culture of violence. The problem is amplified by the fact that these cities are bordered by counties and states were you can pretty much buy any sort of gun you want, and these weapons are in turn infused into these unstable environments with predictable results. The problem is not that guns are prohibited in these cities. The problem is that most any sorts of guns imaginable are available virtually everywhere around these cities and are easily brought into the mix. Contrary to the premise of your argument, Chicago, NY, Detroit and DC are in fact excellent case studies as to why gun restrictions need to be at the national/federal level, strict, and ubiquitous across all US states and municipalities.

Tank you,
Gary

 

[DianePa]

Good Morning Diane: Actually the National Socialist regime (Nazis) lifted all restrictions on the ownership of firearms in 1938, and prior to that they of course ignored the existing laws imposed on Germany at the end of the First World War regarding the importation of guns. German citizens were not denied the right to own guns. Guns were in fact taken from Jews, however, this action was imbedded in the overall policy of taking everything that Jews owned. Moreover, Jews were only two percent of the overall population, and very few of them owned guns in the first place. If every Jew in Germany (or Poland for that matter) owned a gun and used guns for resistance, they would simply have died sooner.

Have you totally ignored the fact that many, not only Jews, were asking the allies to air drop them weapons since the ones they actually had either were old, non-functional or without ammunition. If ammunition was available as you seem to surmise then why the necessity to air drop?

Jefferson was a framer of the Constitution at a time when the United States was a wilderness frontier for the most part, and a firearm was a single shot flint lock musket that took a good deal of time and skill to load and even more skill to hit something with it. If AK47’s and AR17’s that could take out hundreds of people in a few minutes existed at the time, Jefferson would have ensured that you wouldn’t have the right to own one. He was a progressive liberal.

Jefferson was a “progressive liberal”. Now that is laughable. I would agree T. Roosevelt, Wilson and even Lincoln may well have been but Jefferson is a real stretch.
It does not matter what type of gun is available. That argument is worthless especially the intent of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to protect themselves - in an equal manner to the government - whether it be with a gun or a bow and arrow or even if someday the use of a laser type weapon. The 2nd amendment was not about particular weapons but to ensure the people would have the right and access to an equal playing field.

Actually, the fact is that the Japanese were unable to entertain serious notions on invading the US homeland because of the transport issues that attended having a good portion of their fleet destroyed at Midway, having their over extended military resources tied up in defending the Philippines and other islands of the Asia Pacific region, the loss of Guam, Okinawa and Iwo Jima, diminished fuel and material resources, and the extensive land mass of the United States.

You are addressing a period long past the actual planning of invasion. It is not relative to the time of the bombing of Pearl Harbor. And read the history…our west coast was building more defensive positions after Dec 6 because people DID think the possibility of an invasion existed.

Cars have a practical use other than killing, and guns do not. They are a modern day necessity and guns are not, unless you have shooting something on your agenda. Moreover, to acknowledge that people die by one means is hardly is hardly cause to add another means.

Guns have many PRACTICAL uses just as any other man made device may well be practical. It is not the gun or anything other that kills, it is the person and their reasoning that bends the curve.

You spew the sound bites of a true 'progressive/socialist/marxist that eschews the doctrine that the people serve the government and not the other way round…

Thank you,
Gary

 

[Gorgias]

I would give people 36 months to turn them in for the cash value of the weapon. Then the weapons would be destroyed.

There are, by some estimates, 300 million guns in the U.S.; if we guessed that the average value of each was $100 (which is ridiculously low), where do you suggest that the $30 billion come from, to pay for such a buy-back?

 

[LongingSoul]

This is not about global might but the U.S. Citizen’s RIGHT.
Every tyrant that came to power in the last century made the confiscation of arms a priority. No means to confront the tyrant when unarmed. The people in the Warsaw ghetto learned that lesson first hand.
The idea of having our 2nd amendments ‘right to bear arms’ was clearly explained by Thomas Jefferson, one of our founders. It allows the people to have the means to answer the threat themselves by another’s aggression whether it be a person, their government or others. Fact: it is accepted that the one thing that prevented any attempt by the Japanese after Pearl Harbor from invading the mainland of the U.S. was the fact that too many of our people bore arms and would answer the threat.
To compare those who founded this nation to vulnerable children is an insult. I am a grown woman and I will not be denied my right to protection as specified in our constitution whether that protection requires a gun, a knife and even a crossbow. Cars kill more people than guns, knives and other weapons so why not ban cars and go back to the horse and buggy. Oh forgot, they too killed people so we would have to ban them as well.

So this is where each person seems to offer a completely different explanation for the foundation of the the ‘right’. The right is founded on the need for a well armed militia to perform *national *defense in case of the foreign invasion? So it is not founded on the right of self defense. Those are two different things. One requires identifying wholely with the self the other requires identifying with the national interests… the common good.

So you are saying the right is a necessity for the common good. To that I ask, how then are the vulnerable like children, school students, mentally and physically disabled, elderly, foreign visitors etc … served by this ‘right’ since they are prevented form having a gun in a gun rich environment that is created by the right?

Why aren’t all schools for example provided with armed boundary defense since they are vulnerable targets of shooters? Are rights really legitimate if they seriously disadvantage a large section of the population? That sounds more like survival of the fittest that a human right.

 

[YADA]

So this is where each person seems to offer a completely different explanation for the foundation of the the ‘right’. The right is founded on the need for a well armed militia to perform *national *defense in case of the foreign invasion? So it is not founded on the right of self defense. Those are two different things. One requires identifying wholely with the self the other requires identifying with the national interests… the common good.

So you are saying the right is a necessity for the common good. To that I ask, how then are the vulnerable like children, school students, mentally and physically disabled, elderly, foreign visitors etc … served by this ‘right’ since they are prevented form having a gun in a gun rich environment that is created by the right?

Why aren’t all schools for example provided with armed boundary defense since they are vulnerable targets of shooters? Are rights really legitimate if they seriously disadvantage a large section of the population? That sounds more like survival of the fittest that a human right.

Excuse me - you are wrong about the right being one of national defense and not the right of self defense … Please re-read your history and understand it better. Our rights are specifically for self defense … as a person who has had to take the Oath - I can tell you specifically that I took that Oath to defend our Constitution from all enemies - foreign and domestic … We fought a war of independence from an oppressive government and we are a free people - the government get its rights by our consent - we do not get our rights from the government … We will only remain a free people by holding fast to our God given Rights - which includes the right to bear arms … not merely long rifles - not merely pistols but arms - not the right to shoot for sport nor to hunt … The Right is the means to defend … defend from any aggressor/oppressor …

Many people forget that the King of England was our lawful ruler, the laws of England were our laws, the taxes imposed upon us were our due to pay … We fought for freedom … freedom from that Ruler and that Country of laws because they had become an oppressor… the same can happen at any time

It is ironic that our government today is arming citizens [who are disarmed by their own governments] around the world so that these people can rise up against the rulers and governments of their homelands and fight for freedom … while at the same time working so hard to disarm citizens here in violation of our constitution.

Is it sad that bad people do bad things? Yes - but we do not live in a padded room nor an existence that is free from any chance of harm… Evil exists - and people choose to sin and accidents happen - all of which causes harm and even death … removing guns from law abiding citizens does not change that in any meaningful way.

 

[LongingSoul]

Excuse me - you are wrong about the right being one of national defense and not the right of self defense … Please re-read your history and understand it better. Our rights are specifically for self defense … as a person who has had to take the Oath - I can tell you specifically that I took that Oath to defend our Constitution from all enemies - foreign and domestic … We fought a war of independence from an oppressive government and we are a free people - the government get its rights by our consent - we do not get our rights from the government … We will only remain a free people by holding fast to our God given Rights - which includes the right to bear arms … not merely long rifles - not merely pistols but arms - not the right to shoot for sport nor to hunt … The Right is the means to defend … defend from any aggressor/oppressor …

Many people forget that the King of England was our lawful ruler, the laws of England were our laws, the taxes imposed upon us were our due to pay … We fought for freedom … freedom from that Ruler and that Country of laws because they had become an oppressor… the same can happen at any time

It is ironic that our government today is arming citizens [who are disarmed by their own governments] around the world so that these people can rise up against the rulers and governments of their homelands and fight for freedom … while at the same time working so hard to disarm citizens here in violation of our constitution.

Is it sad that bad people do bad things? Yes - but we do not live in a padded room nor an existence that is free from any chance of harm… Evil exists - and people choose to sin and accidents happen - all of which causes harm and even death … removing guns from law abiding citizens does not change that in any meaningful way.

I’m trying to figure out how this works. The second amendments says…

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

What that is saying to someone seeing it for the first time is that ‘the security of a free state depends on the presence of a collective (milita) charged with protecting that by the use of arms’.

The ‘state’ is the thing at risk here, not the individual. They are not the same thing. If the individuals rights negate the authority of the State, the state is no longer ‘free’. It cannot work for the common good of all and the law becomes survival of the fittest.

That seems to have been what has happened since you are saying that the state has no power to regulate arms in the interest of the common good because that means the individual rights of a select few would be suppressed.

It seems that the very law that arose to protect the free state… is what has destroyed it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This doesn’t conflict with what I said. Legal documents are simply utilities that are there to serve us. There Is nothing sacred about legal documents either. They’re just tools of a society.

You are understating the value of laws. You are right (in a sense that annoys me) I have to agree with you (in a sense).

My position is: Lex Rex rather than Rex Lex.

That is a different subject, and the Constitution that you quote so often protects the rights of people to believe in communism and Islam.

Not a different subject…rights are rights.

Gary: This is the pivotal statement of this whole discussion and I’m glad you made it.

Yes! the Constitutions protects the rights of everyone (even our enemies to some extent).

It is my contention that our perceived “violence” problem can be better solved by focusing on “evil people” rather than inanimate objects and access to them.

Based on the violence perpetrated by Islamist Jihadists beginning with the assassination of President Kennedy up to 9/11 and beyond…I would support a law or Amendment to the Constitution that recognizes Islam as a political ideology rather than a religion. Also a law that would restrict travel to and immigration from Muslim countries.

Would a law like that infringe on people’s rights…OH YOU BET IT WOULD. Would you expect the good, non violent American Muslims to relinquish their religious freedom to “maybe” provide a sort of community safety?

Now, if you support the rights of our enemies to enjoy our freedoms, logically then you must support ALL the rights protected by our Constitution.

There are laws against murder, but murders still happen, laws against robbery, but robbery still happens, laws against theft, but theft still happens. If we apply that same logic that you apply to gun laws ubiquitously, we should do away with all laws.

No, just enforce what we have and make sentencing mandatory.

You try something else, but you don’t let the problem prevail over you. I

Exactly! You work for a solution that does not violate anyone’s rights…except the bad guy’s.