Gun Control: Controlling Guns or Controlling People?

Agree. But what you wrote is pretty much agreed by everyone.

I like what Michael Badnarik (Constitution Scholar along with being the LP Candidate) said about this amendment:
From his website Badnarik.org, just forget the parts where he talks about him being President and you can get the gist of his argument.

Gun Control
If I have a "hot button" issue, this is definitely it. Don't even THINK about taking my guns! My rights are not negotiable, and I am totally unwilling to compromise when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Let me reiterate an axiom of my philosophy. Rights and privileges are polar opposites. A right is something that I can do without asking. A privilege is something that a higher authority allows me to do. It is utter nonsense for us to accept government permits in order to exercise an inalienable right. Allow me to point out some fallacies in the arguments frequently used by the anti-gun movement.

First, it is impossible for the Second Amendment to confer a "community right", because communities HAVE no rights. Individuals are real. Communities are abstract concepts. You can have individuals without communities, but you cannot have communities without individuals. Ergo, individuals must come first, and only the individuals that make up a community can have rights.

Second, the phrase "well regulated militia" is frequently misconstrued to mean:

lots of government regulations; and,
only the National Guard is allowed to carry guns.
It is necessary to understand the definitions common in America during the time of our war for independence. "Well regulated" used to mean "well prepared". Every man was expected to have a rifle, one pound of gun powder, and sixteen balls for his weapon. He was also expected to be ready to USE that rifle within sixty seconds of the alarm being sounded. Hence the term "minute man".

It is disingenuous for anyone to promote the argument that "militia" refers only to the National Guard in light of the fact that the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, and the National Guard wasn't formed until the early 1900's. This argument is totally without merit, unless you want to imply that our founding fathers were able to predict the future.

I sincerely believe that statistical evidence supports the idea that crime increases exponentially wherever gun control is instituted as the governing policy. Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles have the strictest gun control policies in the United States. The cities with the highest murder rates are Washington DC, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. It doesn't take a PhD to be able to draw the proper conclusion from this evidence. England and Australia have recently instituted strict gun control measures, and both countries have seen the statistics on violent crime quadruple. In contrast, I am told that the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a municipal ordinance that requires homeowners to have a firearm available. Home invasions have dropped to less than 10% of their original rate, indicating to me that criminals value their lives more than they value your property.

I have no doubt that members of the anti-gun crowd would be happy to offer statistical data which appears to contradict the numbers I have just mentioned. Even if they could, their alternate statistics are not enough authority to strip me of my inalienable right to keep and bear arms. My rights are non-negotiable. I don't care if someone else doesn't like it. I don't care if they toss and turn at night, anxiously worried about what I might do with my firearm. My rights are not predicated on whether or not you LIKE what I'm doing. You only have a complaint when I present a "clear and present danger", which is not the case if I have my firearm in a holster.

Repealing unconstitutional gun control laws will be one of my first priorities as President of the United States.



I agree with you...World Dictators agree Gun Control works and politicians love unarmed peasants!!

Just adding more fuel to your fire with good stuff from Badnarik.

Plinko against Gun Control!!

I do support right to have arms, but only up to a point. You don' need assault gun to kill lots of people or deers or whatever.

But you need assault guns to defend against the black boots of Janet Renos Federal Enforcers busting into homes late at night and yanking children out of closets.

Agree. But what you wrote is pretty much agreed by everyone.

If only it were so....how naive.

World Dictators agree Gun Control works and politicians love unarmed peasants!!

Ain't it the truth!

You don' need assault gun to kill lots of people or deers or whatever.

I think you missed the point....

You don' need assault gun to kill lots of people or deers or whatever

Show me an Assault rifle more powerful than a Deer Rifle and I will show you a flying pig (not talking Miss Piggy either)!!

Semi-automatic rifles...hmm oh wait we already had those without the "Assault rifles"...heck ever heard of a semi-automatic shotgun?

If anybody takes an Assault rifle for hunting than they must be hunting for small game because you can forget Deer, Elk and other big game...small bullet...main reason some military soldiers dislike the M-16, 5.56mm NATO round is too small a caliber to penetrate some things, i.e. heavily clothed Al Qaeda fighters, etc.

Now, if you were talking about a fully automatic M-60 I would than say that has been banned since 1930s and if you use it for hunting it may be outside the permit the LOCAL police have to give to you!!

Plinko against Gun Control!!

Ok, but for the sake of argument, do you feel you have the right to bear say.... a grenade launcher, a fully-functioning 88mm Anti-aircraft gun or a 50 calibre rifle capable of hitting an armored target at a range of 1.5 miles?

Reply #8 By: historyishere - 11/5/2004 2:39:59 AM Ok, but for the sake of argument, do you feel you have the right to bear say.... a grenade launcher, a fully-functioning 88mm Anti-aircraft gun or a 50 calibre rifle capable of hitting an armored target at a range of 1.5 miles?

On the first 2 no! On the last you show that you know next to nothing about a 50 cal.round. To go against armored targets require an armor piercing round which is illegal to own! Also you ain't going to pierce any armor at 1.5 miles.

Ok, but for the sake of argument, do you feel you have the right to bear say.... a grenade launcher, a fully-functioning 88mm Anti-aircraft gun or a 50 calibre rifle capable of hitting an armored target at a range of 1.5 miles?

Technically, yes. But the founders did not envision these type of weapons. Hence, most rational people would argue for banning them from private ownership. However the way to go about it, is something the founders did envision. It is called an amendment. Do not break the constitution because of moral outrage. Use the constitution and amend it. In the former case, you are worse than those advocating no control. In the latter, you have taken the high ground and convinced your fellow citizens of a worthy way to keep the spirit and letter of the constitution valid.

Ok, but for the sake of argument, do you feel you have the right to bear say.... a grenade launcher, a fully-functioning 88mm Anti-aircraft gun or a 50 calibre rifle capable of hitting an armored target at a range of 1.5 miles?

On the first one the grenade launcher is banned because it is Military weapon plain and simple (though you can probably own a NON-functioning one), same reason you can't buy a TRUE M-16, though you can buy M-16 clones and M-4 clones.

The second one a fully functioning 88mm Anti-aircraft gun, do you even know how big a freaking' 88 it is, it is apart of a vehicle, i.e. one well known one is Russia's Shilka.

The third one, the only one you seem to be serious about, right now they are legal BUT the armor piercing shell that is a requirement for the rifle to pierce armor is illegal, so no worries there, plus a .50 caliber rifle is no little rifle nor is it a light rifle. The Barret M-95 (Military Sniper Rifle) weighs in at a hefty 27 lbs. without ammo that is a lot of rifle that somebody has to lug around...here's a Link to a little information page about the Barret (bolt-action) M-95.

Plinko Againt Gun Control, because I don't want to be an unarmed peasant!!

I'm curious as to why this issue is even being brought up. Did I miss something?

I'm curious as to why this issue is even being brought up. Did I miss something?

I don't know...oh well.

Soviet Plinko for my Comrades!!

..thanks anyway Grim...

To go against armored targets require an armor piercing round which is illegal to own! Also you ain't going to pierce any armor at 1.5 miles.

I looked into it, and you were right... not only that... but even at that range, you would be in for the fight of your life.

On the first one the grenade launcher is banned because it is Military weapon plain and simple (though you can probably own a NON-functioning one), same reason you can't buy a TRUE M-16, though you can buy M-16 clones and M-4 clones.

You can own one if a) it was made before 1986 and if you obtain a class III licence. The ammunition... well, that is a different story, as drmiler has pointed out.

The second one a fully functioning 88mm Anti-aircraft gun, do you even know how big a freaking' 88 it is, it is apart of a vehicle, i.e. one well known one is Russia's Shilka.

Ok, I admit with the 88, I was just pushing everyone's buttons.... because that one was just so outlandish, I admit it that was meant to garner a response... because it was a ridiculous proposition... I mean, how often would you need a weapon that could perhaps take down a modern airplane or put a serious dent in a tank?

It provides us with a way of rising up against our government should we feel oppressed. If the leaders took away our right to bear arms, we would have no recourse for fighting a corrupt government.

I don't understand your point, but maybe that's because I came from a country where gun is heavily regulated. What is the current gun control system of America? Is it completely uncontrolled or is it controlled to a certain point?

My hunch is that it is controlled to a certain point (e.g. u can't have an automatic machine gune or u can only have small guns). If so, I think the corrupt government will still overpower you. The army surely has a huge amount of ammunition and a wide variet of guns, right?

controlled to a certain point

That one depending on the state but every state I have lived in requires a Gun Safety course be attended and graduated from prior to applying for purchasing any firearm, damn I wish I had my big brother's knowledge of the subject. Than fully automatic weapons are banned and have been banned since the Gangland Act of the 1930s, though you can get around it if and only if you have the permission from your local police department directly.

Most states require a separate Gun carrier I.D. like Texas, whenever a Police Officer asks for ID you must present both your driver's license and gun carrier ID always, other states are different. There is a lot of info on this subject, with there being 50 different laws for each of the 50 states on what kind of procedures are put in place for Gun control, but the biggest issue is between those who think the 2nd Amendment has something to do with National Guard units and actual gun ownership, the latter being the correct answer if phrased in a Founding Fathers era concept.

My hunch is that it is controlled to a certain point (e.g. u can't have an automatic machine gune or u can only have small guns). If so, I think the corrupt government will still overpower you. The army surely has a huge amount of ammunition and a wide variet of guns, right?

Well, this is never the case, after all if it was Ireland would never have achieved it's equality (minus Northern Ireland), America would never achieved its Freedom (US and Mexico), plus there are many more cases. It is easier to fight back with a small gun than NO gun at all.

Plinko for the people who love Starbucks!!

Reply #17 By: Grim Xiozan - 11/5/2004 4:53:40 PM controlled to a certain point That one depending on the state but every state I have lived in requires a Gun Safety course be attended and graduated from prior to applying for purchasing any firearm, damn I wish I had my big brother's knowledge of the subject. Than fully automatic weapons are banned and have been banned since the Gangland Act of the 1930s, though you can get around it if and only if you have the permission from your local police department directly. Most states require a separate Gun carrier I.D. like Texas, whenever a Police Officer asks for ID you must present both your driver's license and gun carrier ID always

Neither one in PA my friend. Did you know that if stopped by PD in PA you are NOT required to even tell the officer that your carrying? Not that I would recomend that procedure. Nor are we required to take a safty test before purchasing any firearm. Having come here from CA this is like someone opening th iron maiden and letting me out.

The ones who want gun control seem to think that EVERY amendment but the 2nd cover individual rights.

Reply #16 By: coffee is overrated - 11/5/2004 12:52:47 PM It provides us with a way of rising up against our government should we feel oppressed. If the leaders took away our right to bear arms, we would have no recourse for fighting a corrupt government. I don't understand your point, but maybe that's because I came from a country where gun is heavily regulated. What is the current gun control system of America? Is it completely uncontrolled or is it controlled to a certain point? My hunch is that it is controlled to a certain point (e.g. u can't have an automatic machine gune or u can only have small guns). If so, I think the corrupt government will still overpower you. The army surely has a huge amount of ammunition and a wide variet of guns, right?

This does not always assure victory.

This is a good article, iamheather.

I think it would be foolish to claim that we do not have the right to own weapons (though some people might argue that).

Personally, I hate guns. I would never own one. Too many children have died because they had access to daddy's gun and either intentionally or accidentally killed themselves or a friend or family member. I don't understand the appeal of hunting. I personally think it's sick to derive pleasure from killing something. However, I have the right to not own a gun. I don't intend to push my feelings about guns on others.

I support laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those without the capacity to understand how to safely use a gun. I support background checks and registration. I support wait time on purchasing a weapon (this makes me think of that Simpsons episode where he's buying a gun, and as he goes through the mandatory waiting period, all kinds of great shooting targets go past him).

I think "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Guns make it possible to kill people from a further distance, they make it possible to kill more people more quickly and efficiently. Since you read up on murder and serial killers, iamheather, I'm sure you are aware of the significance of someone killing another person via gun versus via knife or other up-close weapon. Guns themselves do not kill people, but they make killing light work.

They are a dangerous tool that must be wielded by a cautious and responsible hand.

I have no problem with the average person responsibly owning a gun and using it for hunting, shooting cans off a fence, or making a sunroof in his trailer house (wit bit of humor, no offense intended guys), because it's our right as Americans to own weapons.

Let's just keep them out of the hands of people like the guy in the news right now.

I have a gun.  My husband has a gun.  Our kids have a gun.  We go shooting together (used to, anyway).  My husband carries a gun at work, as did I.  We were both trained by police departments, and we pass on that knowledge to our children.

  There are a lot of responsible gun owners in this country.  Unfortunately, there are some irresponsible ones too. The guy in the news today was an irresponsible gun owner.  Those are the ones that make the news.  You don't hear about us responsible ones, because we don't go around brandishing our firearms as some kind of threat or shooting people who smoke our last cigarette.

  Tex, the 'people kill people' statement....that's really pretty close to the mark.  People are the ones who choose to aim and pull the trigger, just as people are the ones who choose to slash and stab with knives.  If you look at the crime rate in a country where guns are banned, like the UK, you'll see that the crime isn't any less, it's just a different type of crime.  There are more stabbings and knife related crimes there, simply because people don't have firearms.  If they had guns, there'd be more shootings.

We do need to start controlling who gets to own a gun. We have plenty of legislation on the books already; we now need to start enforcing it.

.

I remember a comedian that once said, "If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil."

"If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil."

Exactly!!!!

"If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil."

Larry the Cable Guy.

It can also be flipped around. Cyanide doesn't kill people . . . it can't get into your system by itself. Heroin doesn't kill people . . . someone has to push the needle into the vein.

Guns are weapons. They are tools. When not in the hands of a human being they are just like any other object, however, unlike yogurt or a couch, they are designed to do damage to other things. They are dangerous in their nature.

That doesn't make the right to own a gun any less valid. It's just being realistic about what a gun is.