A
- Status
L
levi86
Guest
For those of you who are against gun control…
Do you believe there should be a limit on the types of firearms that can be owned by private citizens? At what point do you draw the line? Sub- machine guns? Assault rifles? Anti-materiel rifles? Belt fed machine guns? Howitzers?
Do you believe there should be a limit on the types of firearms that can be owned by private citizens? At what point do you draw the line? Sub- machine guns? Assault rifles? Anti-materiel rifles? Belt fed machine guns? Howitzers?
G
Guardian
Guest
The limit on the types of guns should be equivalent to whatever the United States government law enforcement uses. In other words, there should always be a balance of power between the people and the government. Since the police force uses machine guns, etc during routine raids, then citizens should be allowed to have machine guns. If the police have access to belt fed machine guns, then citizens also should have access to belt fed machine guns. Etc. Etc. The limit is determined by the weaponry of the governing authority, no more no less.
L
levi86
Guest
May I ask why you have focused specifically on the police force as representing the force a government can employ? The executive is also in control of the military. Does this mean that the average citizen should have access to jets, warships and tanks?
G
Guardian
Guest
I stated only police because usually the military is not called upon to uphold the law of its countrymen. By “police” I mean anyone that “polices” anyone, which includes any SWAT team, Feds, ATF, CIA, US Marshals, state police, local police, etc.
However, since you bring up the military, yes I believe people should have access to jets, warships and tanks, given they are regulated in the same manner as the military.
D
drafdog
Guest
Gun ownership in this country has become a sacred cow.
But I thought we were trying to become better Christians on this site, not Bhuddists.
Well, wrong again, I guess.
Matthew
But I thought we were trying to become better Christians on this site, not Bhuddists.
Well, wrong again, I guess.
Matthew
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
No, violating the Constitutional rights of our citizens is the sacred cow. Every elected official is obliged to support the Constitution – and yet many take the oath fully intending to violate it.
Those who do not like the 2nd Amendment (or any other amendment) are free to try to repeal it. But until it is repealed, every elected official (and many apponted ones) are obliged by their oaths of office to uphold it.
M
mgrobertson79
Guest
Do you want to end up like those poor Jewish people that died at the hands of Hitler, or the people in Rwanda or Darfur that died at the hands of their government or radical extremist of the islamic faith. If you aren’t willing to defend yourself from these threats, that is ok. Please do not make an effort to prevent the rest of us from defending ourselves from that threat.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
Please read the OP. The question is asked “Does Gun control prevent Gun crime?” Has nothing to do with becoming “better Christians.”
As to what kind of weapons may be allowed, the Gun Control act of 1934 addressed this question. While I take issue with some provisions of that Act, it does set the guidelines. Keeping in mind that laws apply only to the law-abiding, criminals do not obey the law. The consequences of breaking the law are, to them, merely an occupational hazard.
S
Silence_DoGood
Guest
George Mason expresses concern that wealthy people might be able to buy their way out of militia duty:
“…I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government, all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishment inflicted…” (Virginia ratification debate)
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Wouldn’t it be neat if at every election, the voters had to bring their rifles to the polls, and show their ammo pouches were full?
H
hosemonkey
Guest
Hear,Hear!Wouldn’t it be neat if at every election, the voters had to bring their rifles to the polls, and show their ammo pouches were full?
D
drafdog
Guest
Yes, it does. The fewer guns there are available, the fewer opportunities to commit offenses involving their use.
I know everyone is upset at the thought, but the purpose of the amendment was to provide the citizenry with a means of defense against the duly constituted government.
Apparently there are many who do not think that the experiment, although of 225+ years duration, has shown that we got it right and that the need is no longer there. The only ones who are really against gun control laws are the ones who are convinced that the democratic process is inadequate to the task of controlling government. I’m not sure what kind of Americans these are.
The only question there is at this point is the degree to which the government will control the ownership of arms. The constitution may be honored by the issuing of government owned arms to citizens. This would control what sort of arms are available and the ownership could reside with the government, not the individual. Another approach might be to issue bladed weapons of such size and weight that their size would prevent off hand and frivolous usage. Each citizen at birth could be offered the choice of a halberd, a double-handed broadsword or a lance for example. Whatever the choice, it would be the only arms legally in the person’s posession. Little Johnny and little Mary could bring their arms to school and the administration would not be faced with bloodbaths such as Columbine High School or Virginia Tech.
We could go the other way and allow ownership of any and all arms. The local drug dealer could have an Abrams tank, or a garage full of surface to air missiles, or an ICBM, complete with nuclear warhead. If certain factions in this argument had their way, that is exactly what would happen. I can just see some over-paid corporate executive looking for ways to expand deciding to buy a missile carrying submarine and a full complement of armed missiles. There wouldn’t be a small nation in the world safe from assault.
Yes, these are extreme examples. The point is that we have gun control; it is a good idea to have gun control; we will continue to have gun control. Bear in mind the wording of the constitution does not guarantee the right to own firearms. It says “to keep and bear;” it does not say “own.” And it says “arms,” not “firearms.” The government can define what constitutes an arm protected under the second amendment.
Matthew
I know everyone is upset at the thought, but the purpose of the amendment was to provide the citizenry with a means of defense against the duly constituted government.
Apparently there are many who do not think that the experiment, although of 225+ years duration, has shown that we got it right and that the need is no longer there. The only ones who are really against gun control laws are the ones who are convinced that the democratic process is inadequate to the task of controlling government. I’m not sure what kind of Americans these are.
The only question there is at this point is the degree to which the government will control the ownership of arms. The constitution may be honored by the issuing of government owned arms to citizens. This would control what sort of arms are available and the ownership could reside with the government, not the individual. Another approach might be to issue bladed weapons of such size and weight that their size would prevent off hand and frivolous usage. Each citizen at birth could be offered the choice of a halberd, a double-handed broadsword or a lance for example. Whatever the choice, it would be the only arms legally in the person’s posession. Little Johnny and little Mary could bring their arms to school and the administration would not be faced with bloodbaths such as Columbine High School or Virginia Tech.
We could go the other way and allow ownership of any and all arms. The local drug dealer could have an Abrams tank, or a garage full of surface to air missiles, or an ICBM, complete with nuclear warhead. If certain factions in this argument had their way, that is exactly what would happen. I can just see some over-paid corporate executive looking for ways to expand deciding to buy a missile carrying submarine and a full complement of armed missiles. There wouldn’t be a small nation in the world safe from assault.
Yes, these are extreme examples. The point is that we have gun control; it is a good idea to have gun control; we will continue to have gun control. Bear in mind the wording of the constitution does not guarantee the right to own firearms. It says “to keep and bear;” it does not say “own.” And it says “arms,” not “firearms.” The government can define what constitutes an arm protected under the second amendment.
Matthew
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
If that is true, those states with strict “gun control” ought to have less crime than those with “shall issue” concealed carry laws. But the opposite is true.
If that is true, those states that enact “shall issue” concealed carry laws should show an increase in violent crime. But the opposite is true.
I know everyone is upset at the thought, but the purpose of the First Amendment was to provide the citizenry with a means of protesting against the duly constituted government.
Apparently there are many who do not think that the experiment, although of 225+ years duration, has shown that we got it right and that the need is no longer there.
I don’t know about the others, but I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. That oath didn’t say, “Just the parts I like.”
If you don’t like the 2nd Amendment, you are free to try to get it repealed. But if you support laws that circumscribe an amendment you would be in violation of that oath (assuming you took it). And you would be hard put to explain how any of the Constitution can be effective if we can simply brush aside one article of the Bill of Rights.
E
Ender
Guest
No one is pushing the private ownership of RPGs. That you are reduced to such extreme examples implies that you don’t have better ones to use.
This is a disturbing position to support and while it might work for you today on this subject it will surely work against you on another topic on another day. You give up all protection of the law if you behave as if words have no settled definition and can be twisted into the opposite of what they meant when they were written.
Ender
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
This reminds me of a comment by (I think) Cokie Roberts on ABC. She said that when the Constitution was written, all they had were flintlocks, so only flintlocks were covered eby the 2nd Amendment.
When the Constitution was written, all they had were hand-operated screw-presses. So I guess the government can censor anything printed on modern automated presses – or broadcast on radio or TV?
H
hosemonkey
Guest
Right! This is an example of the semantic gymnastics that those who would tamper with the constitution will resort to in order to tease some justification out of the clear language that the Founders placed into the constitution. Flintlocks indeed! I will concur with one proposal that a previous poster put forward. A well-handled rapier or cutlass is much safer in close quarters than a pistol. Pistol bullets tend to go through walls rather easily, thereby endangering innocent parties on the other side. A certain amount of expertise is needed, but you could probably do some sort of “cutlass aerobics” while you were learning, so as to derive a double benefit. Just a thoughtThis reminds me of a comment by (I think) Cokie Roberts on ABC. She said that when the Constitution was written, all they had were flintlocks, so only flintlocks were covered eby the 2nd Amendment.
When the Constitution was written, all they had were hand-operated screw-presses. So I guess the government can censor anything printed on modern automated presses – or broadcast on radio or TV?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Back around the end of the 19th Century, the Moro Juramentados tried that. While the M1892 .38 Colt wasn’t up to the job, the .45 Single Action Army certainly trumped a bolo kiife.Right! This is an example of the semantic gymnastics that those who would tamper with the constitution will resort to in order to tease some justification out of the clear language that the Founders placed into the constitution. Flintlocks indeed! I will concur with one proposal that a previous poster put forward. A well-handled rapier or cutlass is much safer in close quarters than a pistol. Pistol bullets tend to go through walls rather easily, thereby endangering innocent parties on the other side. A certain amount of expertise is needed, but you could probably do some sort of “cutlass aerobics” while you were learning, so as to derive a double benefit. Just a thought
H
hosemonkey
Guest
Quite so. I have the journal of a distant relative who was a young LT during the Moro Insurrection. He complains about the weakness of the .38. They didn’t get .45s until later in the campaign. Just can’t beat the .45 to deliver a punch. If it just wasn’t so hard to carry.Back around the end of the 19th Century, the Moro Juramentados tried that. While the M1892 .38 Colt wasn’t up to the job, the .45 Single Action Army certainly trumped a bolo kiife.
H
hosemonkey
Guest
Drafdog said,
“Yes, these are extreme examples. The point is that we have gun control; it is a good idea to have gun control; we will continue to have gun control. Bear in mind the wording of the constitution does not guarantee the right to own firearms. It says “to keep and bear;” it does not say “own.” And it says “arms,” not “firearms.” The government can define what constitutes an arm protected under the second amendment.”
From where in the wide world of sports did you pull that interpretation? I don’t think that even the goofiest liberal would argue that the Consitution said anything of the sort. You are stretching the point to it’s absolute limits if you see that.
“Yes, these are extreme examples. The point is that we have gun control; it is a good idea to have gun control; we will continue to have gun control. Bear in mind the wording of the constitution does not guarantee the right to own firearms. It says “to keep and bear;” it does not say “own.” And it says “arms,” not “firearms.” The government can define what constitutes an arm protected under the second amendment.”
From where in the wide world of sports did you pull that interpretation? I don’t think that even the goofiest liberal would argue that the Consitution said anything of the sort. You are stretching the point to it’s absolute limits if you see that.
- Status