A Matter Of Perception?

[jakemccoy]

The mainstream view of the average American is anti-gun. An extremely large percentage of the general public is mindless on this issue. So, a poll of the general public would be all screwed up. Unfortunately, that same pool of people votes on issues that affect me personally. That's the only reason I care what the general public thinks. Otherwise, the average opinion on this topic from the general public is meaningless.

Also, note that there is only one average. The average is not a range.

 

[230RN]

The pollster forgot the "Oh, man, what, again with this poll?" choice.

 

[MachIVshooter]

So your position is becuase people have acted irresponisbly with WMD's they shouldn't exist? Wouldn't that same logic follow with firearms? Just a question/thought, no slander, just struck me to ask ya...

WMD's are whole different class of weapon. Indiscriminate doesn't even begin to describe the problem with their use. I belive that no man should have the power to kill tens of thousands with the push of a button.

The argument can be made from a moral standpoint that there is no difference between a madman with a rifle who kills 20 and a madman with a nuke who kills millions. Anyone who actually buys into that is just plain stupid. While any loss of innocent life is tragic, magnitude is certainly a factor in how horrific that event is. A madman with a gun can be confronted and combatted. A madman with a WMD can only be threatened with retaliation, which is of little comfort to the masses at his mercy.

So, in short, my problem with WMD's is that there is no clear distinction between defensive and offensive use, and nobody is safe from them, no matter how hard we try.

WMD's give absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[jakemccoy]

Mach wrote:

WMD's are whole different class of weapon. Indiscriminate doesn't even begin to describe the problem with their use. I belive that no man should have the power to kill tens of thousands with the push of a button.

The argument can be made from a moral standpoint that there is no difference between a madman with a rifle who kills 20 and a madman with a nuke who kills millions. Anyone who actually buys into that is just plain stupid. While any loss of innocent life is tragic, magnitude is certainly a factor in how horrific that event is. A madman with a gun can be confronted and combatted. A madman with a WMD can only be threatened with retaliation, which is of little comfort to the masses at his mercy.

So, in short, my problem with WMD's is that there is no clear distinction between defensive and offensive use, and nobody is safe from them, no matter how hard we try.

WMD's give absolute power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It's a tough issue because you still have to buy into the concept that the U.S. government has the right to own WMD's in order for the U.S. to be the super power it is.

I don't totally agree that WMD's give absolute power. More accurately, WMD's give power over people who don't have WMD's.

 

[Geno]

I think that we pretty much has a proper allowing of firearms, save for the 1986 factor. Oh yeah, and that silly tax stamp.

 

[finalnight]

I stop at

"I believe any conventional firearm including machine guns should be owned "

any higher and my taxes will go up since police departments will increase their firepower as a result.

 

[MachIVshooter]

It's a tough issue because you still have to buy into the concept that the U.S. government has the right to own WMD's in order for the U.S. to be the super power it is.

Governments don't have rights. They have powers granted to them by the people. Or at least, that's how it's supposed to be.

I don't totally agree that WMD's give absolute power. More accurately, WMD's give power over people who don't have WMD's.

See above

Governments should not be allowed arms superior to the people that they govern. And individuals shouldn't have the right to possess WMD's for the simple reasons I have mentioned before. My believing that all free men and women should have unrestricted access to arms acknowledges that we will sometimes pay the price for that freedom with the blood of innocents. But that is a risk we can ill afford when talking about "arms" that can wipe out an entire country in one shot.

I'm about as hard core, no-compromise 2A rights as they come, but you'd have to be downright retarded to believe that this world would survive if everyone had access to nuclear weapons. Checks and balances in terms of the 2A is moot if the arms used for said purpose kill everyone.

The framers had incredible foresight and no doubt knew that weapon technology would progresss when they wrote the BOR. But I don't think in their wildest fantasies they could have envisioned Ohio class subs with a battery of Titan Missiles.

 

[Regolith]

The biggest problem with WMD's is there is no way to avoid harming innocents with one. Even if you drop it on a military bunker in the middle of nowhere, radiation can still spread downwind of the blast area, harming anyone in its path (if its a nuke), and chemical/biological weapons are just as indiscriminate.

Normally, I'm an absolutist when it comes to this issue, but I'm not so sure about WMD's.

Tanks, fighter jets, fine. These can be used in a surgical manner, making the risk to non-combatants very negligible. WMD's? Not so much.

 

[jakemccoy]

Hi Mach,

You wrote:

I belive that no man should have the power to kill tens of thousands with the push of a button.

Governments should not be allowed arms superior to the people that they govern.

You're talking about moral rights right there. I was responding to that.

Like I said, you still have to buy into the fact that the U.S. government has the moral right to own WMD's in order for the U.S. to be the super power it is. Some people here are basically saying that only God should have the power of a WMD (moral issue). Meanwhile, there are no protests to the U.S. government owning WMD's. We have here an exception in the stream of logic. I don’t think any logical person can dispute the fact that it’s a difficult moral issue.

Regards,
Jake McCoy

 

[1911 guy]

The only reason I don't think chem, bio or radiological should be owned are the technical and storage factors. They are prohibitive in and of themselves.
Anything else? If you've got the money, why not? If you've spent several million dollars on an aircraft and flight training, I highly doubt you're going to be an airhead about it. Same with other heavy equipment. Too much money involved for intentional misuse. Look at the guys who build racecars. Loads of money, they are raced hard then carefully maintaned.

 

[Jamie C.]

I belive that no man should have the power to kill tens of thousands with the push of a button.

Traditionally, some men and women have been able to kill millions with nothing more than giving the order for it to be done.


J.C.

 

[cyclist]

I'm having a deja'vu moment with this poll, but anyway....
I can't answer the poll because of the word "should", without any qualifiers it sounds like a mandate instead of a choice. Maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

Anyway, I'll address this one point from the opening comment:

I also would like a rational discussion as to where people should and should not be allowed to carry firearms presuming they have a CCW. For that matter, do some here believe that anyone should be able to carry a firearm under any and all circumstances, and that CCW's set by the state amount to a violation of their 2nd amendment rights?

To me, provided that someone doesn't have any criminal intent then there should be no restrictions on what and where and when someone can carry anything that they want to carry. Does not matter if it's a handgun, a fixed blade knife, and dirk or dagger, a sap or blackjack, a double-edged switchblade, a full-auto machine gun. A person can be killed dead with a Cross ballpoint pen, a tool is a tool, and anything can be used as a weapon.

I also do not like the whole concept of CCW permits as to me it seems like one is asking for permission to exercise a right. The manner in which I might carry a firearm is irrelevant and I don't like the technicality of being allowed to open carry but then get dinged if it starts to rain and I put on a raincoat that covers the open carry holster.

Personal responsibility, personal accountability, no restrictions, no CCW permit required, no mandatory training required. It is impossible to regulate to the lowest common denominator with rules and regulations, so I fall back on the philosophy of "if you abuse it then you lose it". Just because someone passes a test doesn't mean they won't do something stupid, just look at car drivers for an example of this.

 

[GeezerwithGuns]

Anything you can afford to own, except non-discriminatory weapons (gas, bio, nuclear, etc.).

 

[MiddleAgedKen]

I voted "any military weapon." A body ought to be able to own modern-day horse artillery if he can afford the fuel bill. It was good enough for Sam Adams and John Hancock, and ought to be good enough for us.

 

[frogomatic]

I believe ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE have the natural born right to arm themselves with the weapon of the day to secure their freedom and to protect that which they care for.

 

[Geo.Az]

What Part of the 2nd Amendment do you Not understand

It was written by the PEOPLE for the PEOPLE to limit Power of the Gov. What part of " thou shall not Infringe " do you Not understand ?.... It is Black and White. a Right is a RIGHT. and a Wrong is a F ! The Answer is..... they have Stolen our RIGHTS ! What part of that do you Not understand ?....

ps....BEWARE any one who Steals/Infringes on Your/Our RIGHTS and most know they are!....

 

[Josh Aston]

“ 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. ”

I don't see anything about "conventional". It just says Arms, which I interpret to mean all arms, even WMDs. And it says they shall not be infringed.

As for WMDs, the average person wouldn't want them anyway. The people that are crazy enough to want to use them already own them, regardless of laws.

 

[Vector]

Without addressing a particular poster, this general notion that WMD's should be owned by private citizens is a little .
Sure I expected a couple of people who were so extreme as to believe they should have that right, but I am not sure of a rational reason. Before someone replies with a general comment like "to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government run amok", keep in mind that our entire government and obviously the Constitution will have been long gone for that scenario to play out.
Furthermore, what exactly are you envisioning, that the forces of the government will be descending upon your home, and your only sure fire way to prevent such a thing is to nuke them? If that is the case, you will be taking the attitude that if I am going to be killed or captured, I will take a bunch of them with me? What about your neighbors and friends, they will get to meet their maker because you have the power to make it happen with the push of a button?

Again, I might be missing something here, but the practical application of having such a weapon in private hands is eluding me.
`

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Missing Posts

Y'all may recall that personal attacks are out of bounds here.

Just a friendly reminder.

If you have a beef with someone, by all means use PM to sort that out.

 

[jakemccoy]

Hi everybody,

Without addressing a particular poster, I don't think it's appropriate to criticize other people's comments if you didn't vote.

Regards,
Jake McCoy

 

[Josh Aston]

Again, I might be missing something here, but the practical application of having such a weapon in private hands is eluding me.

Do I have a practical reason for owning one? No, not really. Don't even want one. However, what eludes me is why the government should be able to tell me what I can and can't own.

 

[Vector]

Josh,

I still have a few other posts to respond to, but the governments primary responsibility is to protect it's citizens. Allowing anyone who feels the need to own WMD's would make that job almost impossible.

 

[rampage841512]

All military small arms should be easily attainable to the law abiding citizen.

 

[Josh Aston]

I still have a few other posts to respond to, but the governments primary responsibility is to protect it's citizens. Allowing anyone who feels the need to own WMD's would make that job almost impossible.

And that is where our fundamental differences lie. Not only do I not believe that it is the governments job to protect it's people, I also don't believe that it is capable of doing so, at least not all the time. In some instances it may be succesful, but we only need to look back to 9/11 to see an example of where the government failed miserably at protecting it's people. Had those citizens been armed and ready to protect themselves the outcome may very well have been different. It's also a case of those few crazy people creating their own WMDs regardless of what the current laws were.

When it comes to threats from foreign governments, an organized militia should be activated. That militia is made up of the citizens who are responsible for the protection of themselves and their country. Eliminate the standing Armed Forces and suddenly you have a very real need for private citizens to own WMDs.

 

[Geo.Az]

On a Matter of Perception - I Need Help Please.

Please Look at Good Vidio ( youtube ) on a Police Department Fire Arms Instructor. Telling all the Sheeple what are Facts..... Very Good Demo.
This Should be corrected ? or Should this be Corrected ?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X9cDbA8O9-c
" My feelings are ..... Facts are Facts and Lies are Lies. If I want Lies I will go to CNNN. Please Guys... I Need feed back....How do We Correct the Lie/Distirtion ? This Is a Fine example of Yellow Jurnialism at It's Best ! Please read the replys and you will see"

PLEASE...GUYs ...... I am not Qualified to do this. :banghead: You Guys are Better at What to do and I Value your judgement and Input.
These People are Brain Washing the People and Why would they Lie/Distort ?

ps... I am not bashing.... just pointing out Inaccuracy.....Am I Wrong ???