Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bblackwood]

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 19:34

I don't buy this hand gun crap at all.

Hey, fair enough - no one says you have to. Thankfully our founding fathers didn't share your opinion (and yes, handguns were prevalent then as well). I'm simply thankful that the courts agree that our constitution has merit and I have the choice.

Also, I've been where you are in relation to your faith - we all go through different phases (often in different orders, so don't take that as me saying I'm somehow beyond where you are in your walk). Suffice to say I rather like the way the Narnia Chronicles put it: "He's not a tame lion..."

Finally, it's worth noting that Paul told Timothy "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever" (1 Tim. 5:8). I hope you see the absurdity of assuming this only applies to shelter, food and clothing - what good are these things if you won't even try to provide your family with safety? Exodus 22:2-3 makes it pretty clear how God feels about thieves breaking into your home, and the apostle Paul tells us "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Further, we are told that both God and Jesus are unchanging and forever:
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8) and "For I am the Lord, I do not change" (Malachi 3:6).

Granted, this can go much deeper, just making some points.

Cheers!

[Paul Cavins]

Quote:

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. The second amendment is the only one that comes with a qualification. There is a discussion to be had over what the qualification means.

A qualification,  or is it an explanation, or a justification?

I don't think it is so clear that the first phrase qualifies the second. The second seems pretty clear and able to stand on its own.

PC

[bblackwood]

Paul Cavins wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 23:50

Quote: 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. The second amendment is the only one that comes with a qualification. There is a discussion to be had over what the qualification means. A qualification,  or is it an explanation?

According to the SCOTUS, it's merely an example, not a definitive statement. For those that wish to argue the finer points of this ruling, please read it first...

[rnicklaus]

Here is something told to me by one of the guards responsible for security detail for a CA Lt Governor/label owner in the '70's while I was waiting for a meeting with the Lt Governor.

We were talking about guns and home protection.  The security guy (part of a state Secret service like detail) made this point.

"I wouldn't want my wife or my daughter to have a gun in the house.  They are both good people.  If someone was to break into their house carrying a gun, the 'bad guy' has already made a plan - If there is a weapon, fire first, flee, or take the weapon and maybe fire, is one example.  The "good guys" have no plan.  If they are startled, they may fumble for the weapon and then they may wait for a count of 5 or 10, or more being - good people - before making a move, therefore forcing the hand of the 'bad guy'"

Interesting perspective.  I guess unless you sleep with a loaded gun under your pillow or keep it next to you when you watch TV.

[John Ivan]

I have to tell ya. The idea of the "average" Republican American walking around with a hand gun is just plain scary.. They're good "conservatives" though.. {what ever the fuck they think THAT is supposed to mean, how funny}

Crime in D.C. will go up. Gun deaths on our streets will go up. People who own hand guns kept in their homes for protection are more likely to be killed in the case of an armed intruder entering their home.

The people who know the most about this subject, namely, Law Enforcement , do not like this one bit..

The NRA is now simply a political hack organization run by total hacks. The idea that all these hand guns are needed by modern day Americans is a bunch of horse shit. The bottom line is very simple.. A bunch of people will now be killed by idiots who can't handle a gun properly and don't really know WHEN to fire it.. These people would otherwise live. But now, some of them will be killed.. We had a real chance at putting a big dent in the number of hand gun deaths. But people believe strange things.. Really strange. Like George Bush was a good idea, for instance. Yes. People really thought this very thing.. AMAZING!!

Just stupid. Like the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror"..

Also, I think it's quite amusing that people think there is any real question about what they were driving at in the constitution regarding this subject.. The idea that the framers, knowing what we know now about our society, would want these people carrying hand guns is a fantasy. {at best}... Amazing.

dumb, dumb, dumb.

No surprise though.

Ivan...................

[bblackwood]

John Ivan wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 04:40

Crime in D.C. will go up.

It will be interesting to see what happens in DC, as it's one of the most violent cities in the country and even though this ban in place for 32 years (you do know that, right? 32 years - it's not a new law). Violent crime increased by 40% in England in the first two years after they enacted their gun ban (and doubled in the first four), for example, and there's plenty of research (google is your friend) that shows crime rates dropping when the citizen are able to arm themselves (in countries where weapon are already available).

Had gun control started early on in this country to some degree and we weren't in a country with an estimated 300 million firearms, gun control might work - but at this point Pandora's box has long been opened and there's no going back.

Some points to consider:
1] I find it interesting that people are so willing to dismiss gun control on the basis of the fact that this country is literally full of guns. The criminals aren't going to turn their guns in. Explain how disarming the citizens helps when the gang-bangers will remain armed.
2] For those they wish to wait for the police, I urge you to read up on the SCOTUS decision on Castle Rock v. Gonzales - where the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales (and therefore all citizens) did not have a constitutional right to police protection (even in the presence of a restraining order).
3] If you wish to read further about what the founding fathers said about guns, again, google is your friend, but it's obvious this was about more than just a 'militia'. Here's a couple:
"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." - John Adams
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither  inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and  better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man  may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

[Jon Hodgson]

The idea that you need guns to protect you from a tyranical government is really rather silly, because they won't do you any good whatsoever.

250 years ago when the arms gap between the populace and the government was relatively small it might, but today they've got tanks, stealth bombers, gunships aircraft carriers and hundreds of thousands of trained killers... and you're going to stop them imposing their will on you with a 9mm?

The side that will win in any internal conflict in the US is the side that has the armed forces with it, end of story.

It does give you a nice security blanket to cling to though, happily believing that it will keep you safe from tyranny and keep you free while your freedoms disappear through the political and legal process under the guise of keeping you all safe from terrorists.


As for the claim of "guns don't kill people, people kill people"... well I agree, but I have a question...

Why is it that Americans with guns kill so many people?

It's not the guns, the Swiss have more guns relative to the population but almost no gun deaths.

Personally, I'd be more enamoured of the American obsession with their "right" to bear arms if as a whole the population actually showed it could be trusted not to hurt itself when given something dangerous to hold.

[Jay Kadis]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 06:23

The idea that you need guns to protect you from a tyranical government is really rather silly, because they won't do you any good whatsoever.

While the average citizen might be at a disadvantage versus modern military weaponry, we need only look at Afghanistan to see how pervasive, relatively simple personal weapons can stand up to high-tech armies.  I think you're forgetting the numbers, too: the military is small compared to the total number of citizens.  And the military is made up of citizens who may well think twice about doing the bidding of politicians who order them to take possibly illegal, draconian action against their fellow citizens.

[bblackwood]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 08:23

The idea that you need guns to protect you from a tyranical government is really rather silly, because they won't do you any good whatsoever. 250 years ago when the arms gap between the populace and the government was relatively small it might, but today they've got tanks, stealth bombers, gunships aircraft carriers and hundreds of thousands of trained killers... and you're going to stop them imposing their will on you with a 9mm?

Well, we'll agree to disagree on that one, I suppose. All you have to do is look at what a ragtag group of determined people have accomplished in Iraq to see what can happen - sure they are killed at a much higher rate than US soldiers, but they've certainly tied them up for a while now. Now suppose instead of a few thousand you had a few million...

Quote:

The side that will win in any internal conflict in the US is the side that has the armed forces with it, end of story.

Assuming the armed forces stayed with one side and didn't split, you might be right. But if things got bad enough that removing tyrannical government needed to happen, you can bet that not only would we be thankful to be armed, but the military wouldn't show solidarity, either.

Regardless, that's arguing about 'what if' and doesn't accomplish anything. The reality is that if we ever needed to overthrow the government (again, I think that's a pretty far-fetched case), we'd all be happy to have the arms we do have.

And a militia of the people is not just for defense against the government - an armed citizenry is also helpful in case of an (again, unlikely) attack by foreigners on our soil.

Quote:

It does give you a nice security blanket to cling to though, happily believing that it will keep you safe from tyranny and keep you free while your freedoms disappear through the political and legal process under the guise of keeping you all safe from terrorists.

Militias have been used on local levels many times over the years, even as recently as 1946 here in this country - http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

Quote:

As for the claim of "guns don't kill people, people kill people"... well I agree, but I have a question... Why is it that Americans with guns kill so many people? It's not the guns, the Swiss have more guns relative to the population but almost no gun deaths.

It's a societal issue, not a gun issue, and that's the whole point. Taking guns away doesn't stop violence - look at Scotland, for example. Virtually no guns, second highest murder rate in Europe - they kill each other with knives.

We have to work on our societal issues - that's the gaping wound here. Taking guns away is merely putting a band-aid on that gaping wound.

[Jon Hodgson]

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 15:30

Regardless, that's arguing about 'what if' and doesn't accomplish anything.

I disagree because the "what if" is used to support the gun lobby. If the idea that an armed citizenry in the USA would make any difference to the imposition of a tyranical govenment is incorrect (and I strongly believe it is) then that makes the use of it to support gun ownership invalid.

Maybe Americans should stop thinking of gun ownership as a right, and start thinking of it as a RESPONSIBILITY.

[Jon Hodgson]

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 15:30

It's a societal issue, not a gun issue, and that's the whole point. Taking guns away doesn't stop violence - look at Scotland, for example. Virtually no guns, second highest murder rate in Europe - they kill each other with knives.

But even the murderous Scots have less than half the murder rate of the USA (2.33 per 100 000 according to the WHO versus 5.5 per 100 000 according to the FBI).

[PookyNMR]

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 20:21

I am not opposed to shooting as a sport.  I do believe however that shooting with semi-automatic weapons and handguns at targets is the "peace time" practice for shooting someone later, if only in self-defense.  In my much earlier years I enjoyed target shooting with a rifle.  I probably would again, but not with a semi nor a hand gun.

Well that's your deep bias that could not be further from the truth.

I've participated in all sorts of target sports that include semi-auto rifles, shotguns and pistols.  Never was the idea of ever even imaging another person part of the game.  Ever.

Personally, I'm deeply opposed to not only to gun violence but even exercise which have any imaginary component of another person.  That value is very widely help up here among the various clubs, ranges and competitors.

[fiasco ( P.M.DuMont )]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 11:52

But even the murderous Scots have less than half the murder rate of the USA (2.33 per 100 000 according to the WHO versus 5.5 per 100 000 according to the FBI).

Then the very first thing we need to get rid of are vehicles.
http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/1motorac.html

[PookyNMR]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 07:23

The idea that you need guns to protect you from a tyranical government is really rather silly, because they won't do you any good whatsoever.

I know a lot of refugee families from various African nations that might disagree with you.  The stories and scars of violence from armed tyrant government troops are beyond sickening and hard for the imagination to even deal with some of the things that have happened.  Unarmed families slaughtered en masse because of their land, religion, tribe, etc.

Even though I'm opposed to gun violence, I don't think the idea of defending yourself against a tyrant government is all that silly.

[bblackwood]

Jon Hodgson wrote on Fri, 27 June 2008 10:44

Maybe Americans should stop thinking of gun ownership as a right, and start thinking of it as a RESPONSIBILITY.

I agree. But I'll also add that a vast majority of the estimated 120 million Americans do consider it a right that carries with it responsibility. In 2005 (latest available records), the CDC reports that 30,694 people were killed in the US from firearms (out of a total population of 296,507,061), which translates to 0.00104% of the population. This number includes suicides, which the DOJ estimates account for 56% of firearms deaths, but I'll include those anyway. Ideally, that number would be '0', but that's not realistic - murder has existed since the beginning of time (and some gun killings are justified).

The real point is that, assuming estimates (of 40% of the population owning or having direct access to guns) are correct, 99.97% of gun owners in America handled their guns responsibly that year. If drivers were as responsible with their cars as gun owners are with their guns, the death-rate from automobiles would drop to 25% it's current average...