My views on gun ownership

[pbhome71]

mpd239 said

No, Bob Locke, my argument is that the sale of said weapons should be illegal.

If you don't mind, can you repeat your position on why do you think that the said weapons should be illegal?

 

[jefnvk]

It is illegal for people under 21 to buy alcohol, yet it happens. The alcohol itself is not illegal, but the act of buying it, for those under 21, is.

I don't think so. If I'm at a party drinking alcohol, guess how gets an MIP, regardless if I bought it or not.

And I still want to know how a bayonet lug increases crime?

 

[TonyB]

I wouldn't mind having an Abrams tank......anybody know if they take payments
I think it's funny how all of the Amendments to the constitution are about individual rights....except the 2nd
The fact that it IS the SECOND thing they thought of,probably means it was knid of important,don't ya think???

 

[Baba Louie]

mpd239,
Do a search on "The Battle of Athens" (Tenn) for an eye-opening read, seeing as how you are a student of politics with a penchant to remove some firearms from the public. Well, at least to question the necessity for said firearms.

Here's a link to ease your way into the subject matter (and for lurkers not aware of a small part of our recent post WWII history)
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
Anecdotal evidence no doubt, but reality.
Assault is a behavior. Assault Weapon a buzzword crafted by those politicians who would disarm US citizens (or try... as if that's really possible) or limit their ability to stop said politicians from becoming ner-do-wells... in the name of public safety.
Then read Sen Feinstein's quote on "having the votes to round them all up" (hint... she wasn't talking about illegal imimigrants or criminals at large) and tell us your thoughts. Please.
Should you actually follow up on that quick lesson, you might be able to gather a glean of why we (or at least, I) feel the way we/I do. History does have a way of repeating itself, no?
Should you not be able to see the forest for the trees, then it's time to move on to another thread, methinks.
But I must thank you for starting this thread as we seem to always be preaching to the choir around here and "Liberty's tree does need new blood from time to time". mdp239, 25 extra brownie points if you can tell me who uttered that original thought (I paraphrased poorly) without looking it up.

For some, no explanation is necessary. For others, no explanation will do.

 

[mpd239]

I think that comment by Dianne Feinstein is plain stupid, as reading most of my posts should have clued you in to. I wholeheartedly support gun rights; but I find weapons that can easily be modified to full automatic or utilize clips of more than 20 rounds to be excessive and dangerous.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Now we're getting somewhere!!

...I find weapons that can easily be modified to full automatic or utilize clips of more than 20 rounds to be excessive and dangerous

So can we take this as your rough definition of what you consider an "assault weapon" that should be illegal?

 

[Powderman]

I think that comment by Dianne Feinstein is plain stupid, as reading most of my posts should have clued you in to. I wholeheartedly support gun rights; but I find weapons that can easily be modified to full automatic or utilize clips of more than 20 rounds to be excessive and dangerous.

Indeed. But, WHY?

Why, oh, why, should the .gov have the RIGHT to tell you, a free American citizen what you can and cannot own? Who has the gall, the nerve, the stones to try to decide what is right and is not right for an American citizen to own, free and clear?

I asked you a question about what car you owned. I asked that for this reason.

Why do people own Fords, Cadillacs, Buicks, Subarus or Hondas? Why these vehicles, when all that is needed is a four-door sedan of ample space and squared corners; a true volkswagen ?

Why do you need a different car?

Answer--you DON'T.

So why do you own a different car?

Because you CAN.

That is the crux of firearms ownership. Isn't it funny, that pro-gunners will tell you to make your own informed decision to own firearms, while anti gunners will try to talk you out of it?

And, if I want to load my AR15 with 30 round magazines, head out to the range, and shoot either 10, 3-round groups without reloading, 6,5-round groups, or one 30 round group, isn't it my right? My privilege?

As well as yours?

 

[DRZinn]

Jeeps were designed by the military-- but for a purpose that translates flawlessly to civilian society.

And defending myself is not a legitimate use of an object originally designed for the military?

Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

I can in South Central.... It's called home invasion, and it's on the rise in many areas. Notably England, where guns are almost completely banned.

And if the following statement were true:

Statistics show that 90% of all cars involved in fatality-causing accidents are two-door sedans with GVW ratings of less than 4000 lbs.

...would that make it OK to ban two-door sedans with GVW ratings of less than 4000 pounds?

 

[Graystar]

I think that comment by Dianne Feinstein is plain stupid, as reading most of my posts should have clued you in to. I wholeheartedly support gun rights; but I find weapons that can easily be modified to full automatic or utilize clips of more than 20 rounds to be excessive and dangerous.

But the problem is that it’s not good enough to just think that. You need sound reasoning that is backed up by some kind of data. Laws shouldn’t be passed just because they sound good.

That is why the AWB was allowed to sunset. Part of that law required that a study be conducted on the effects of the law. The study concluded that the law had no effect. Every law on the books consumes resources because it must be enforced. So I ask you...what is your justification for keeping a resource-consuming law, that is providing no benefit?

 

[Intune]

I wholeheartedly support gun rights…

No, you don’t.

…but I find weapons that can easily be modified to full automatic or utilize clips of more than 20 rounds to be excessive and dangerous.

Now you must ask yourself WHY you believe this.

 

[dustind]

"The American people have never wanted to outlaw guns, or prohibit law-abiding American adults from owning a firearm. But the American people are a sensible lot, and they know no freedom is absolute. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but slander or incitement to riot is not. Freedom of the press is vital, but libel and kiddie porn are not.

Right, we can walk around freely with any tools to commit those crimes, but if we violate someones else's rights we are dealt with after they occur. I want the same rules for firearms. I should be able to keep and bear any firearm, and if I violate someone's rights, punish me afterwards.

After a mass slandering of a group you do not lobby to ban printers or bull horns/megaphones, that would not make sense.

No less obscene is the argument that any law that would make us all a little safer -- say, banning cop-killer bullets -- is the first step in a totalitarian government taking control of us all and turning our nation into a Socialist republic. Such an argument is just plain insane"

There has never been one injury or death from so called cop killer bullets.

The first step to a totalitarian government is banning things (or doing anything) based on fear, ignorance, or prejudice.

FYI: a side effect of Teflon coatings is it makes it harder for a bullet to penetrate Kevlar, Teflon was used to reduce friction and wear inside of the barrel.

Another FYI: short barreled shot guns to not significantly "spray" pellets over a larger area than normal length shot guns. The pattern of a shot gun is determined by the barrel profile and/or choke tubes, length is not significant.

The NRA is against short barreled shotguns only because the law is. The law was against them due to concealability, hence the overall length of 26 inches rule. That was at a time when Roosevelt wanted all firearms banned, and almost did it by taxing them up to $10,000 each, but congress compromised the idea down to $200. At the time that was several times what most firearms where worth.

I find weapons that can easily be modified to full automatic or utilize clips of more than 20 rounds to be excessive and dangerous.

Most pistols can be modified to fire full auto with nothing more than a nail file. It takes engineering to keep a pistol from cycling until it runs out of ammo.

Almost any firearm (rifles, shotguns, pistols, etc) can hold more than twenty rounds, all you have to do is make the magazine bigger. There are a few types of ratating magazines that can be fit to shot guns.

Why do you think magazine capacity or full auto is relevant? Semi auto is more controllable than full auto. Even a video game or paintball would show that spray firing does not work.

Taking one second to reload means nothing to someone on a killing spree. Mass murdering usually take several minutes to hours, time spent reloading is insignificant. By the same token if you are being attacked that one second pause under stress can get you killed. Mass murderers do not have to worry about being taken out in that second because no one is ever in their face attacking them.

 

[iamkris]

You are all missing the point...mpd236 FEELS that:

I find weapons that can easily be modified to full automatic or utilize clips of more than 20 rounds to be excessive and dangerous.

Now we finally get down to brass tacks. It's his FEELINGS. He has no proof of this statement, just that he FEELS it to be true and "excessive". It's like asking him why he likes the color blue...he just does. No logic required...it's easier like that.

 

[Wiley]

mpd239,

Both Alan M. Dershowitz and Laurence H. Tribe disagree with your analysis that the Second Amendment is a ‘collective’ right.

(Dershowitz and Tribe are Full Professors at Harvard Law School and, arguably, the finest Constitutional scholars of this century. Tribe's ‘American Constitutional Law’ is THE text on Constitutional law. Both are very liberal, hate guns, and in the case of Dershowitz would like to repeal the Second Amendment. Tribe is an attorney for the Democratic National Committee.)

“...Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification." Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, "admittedly of uncertain scope," to "possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."...â€
(‘Scholar's shift in thinking angers liberals’ by Tony Mauro, USA TODAY on 08/27/99)

Alan Dershowitz says: “[Those] who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right [are] courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.â€

With respect to Dershowitz‘s statement: (1.) Five of the first ten Amendments use the phrase ‘the people’ . You would have us believe that four are individual rights and one is a ‘collective’ right with NO differentiating clause. Apply your reasoning to the other four and see the result. (2.) The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the Federal government with respect to the several States and, more importantly, the individual citizen (‘the people’).

 

[Gordon Fink]

An ammunition magazine is a box with a spring in it! How would you possibly ban and control this for anyone but the law-abiding—you know, the ones who don’t commit mass killings?

Besides, killers don’t even need guns to commit mass murder. Our al-Qaida friends already proved that.

Here’s even more evidence: 7 dead in Japan stabbing attack. This was just last month, but a similar mass murder was also committed in 2001.

~G. Fink

 

[Justin]

I find weapons that can easily be modified to full automatic...

I seriously doubt that mpd will answer the following queries, but I find this enjoyable nonetheless.

ATF statistics from the Youth Gun Crime Interdiction Initiative studies have overwhelmingly shown that guns chambered in .22 LR and 12 gauge are by far the most commonly used types of weapons in crime.

Crimes committed with weapons illegally converted to fire fully automatically are so vanishingly rare as to not even statistically register.

Now, if you're truly an honest social utilitarian, which of the two above listed classifications of firearm are you going to call for further restrictions on?

...or utilize clips of more than 20 rounds to be excessive and dangerous.

Just how, exactly do you intend to enforce such a law?

Are you seriously suggesting that I should be prosecuted for simply possessing a bit of sheet metal?


Cheerfully awaiting your response.

 

[Bob Locke]

Can you clear up something for me (and the rest of us)?

Is it your position that firearms should not have greater than a certain capacity (10, 20, or 30 rounds), but you are perfectly fine with them otherwise?

To me, the crux of your argument centers around this. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[Baba Louie]

I wholeheartedly support gun rights; but I find weapons that can easily be modified to full automatic or utilize clips of more than 20 rounds to be excessive and dangerous.

Modified to Full auto? Against the law. Big no no for the law abiding. No big deal for the criminally inclined. Use of 20 rounds against the law abiding citizenry? Big no no for the law abiding. No big deal for the criminally inclined.
See a pattern there?
Perhaps its a matter of trust and mommie like control. Since I trust myself and have adequate self control to possess and use firearms which could be converted to F.A. and/or utilize 20, 30 or more rounds of ammunition in the magazine, I tend to assume/presume/figure that 99.9% of my fellow Americans, being the law abiding individuals they are, are more than capable of doing the same. I have had conversations with individuals who are professed anti's who have actually told me that they couldn't have a gun around the house as they might use it when they get mad. Not to defend their lives or their families lives, but in a moment of anger and loss of self control. I tend to agree that these types of persons should not have a fiream in their possession, but I don't ever think I could go so far as to agree with passing new laws to regulate that.
That's where we'll have to agree to disagree. In fact, that's where I draw the line and will do what I can with my limited resources to stand against those who do so.
(Note to self... look up Trish's quote in the James Castilla "I'm an anti with questions" thread of a year ago... it was magnificent)

(editted to add link to the James Castilla thread... worthy of a read mdp239, if you have the time...)
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27373&highlight=anti

 

[insidious_calm]

STOP the presses!

Sorry I'm late!


MPD239,

Let's get back to the constitutional argument for a bit. While the circular arguments you're making on everything from gun design to untrustworthy citizens are certainly entertaining, they cannot be anything more than that until we resolve the issues of contitutionality.

As a Polysci student, at an institution of good repute no less, the basics of this should be easy for you. First things first. Do you understand and accept the fact that governments, federal and state, do not and can not possess RIGHTS; that governments possess only POWERS?


Answer that and we can proceed.



I.C.

 

[griz]

Hello MPD, I know I'm coming in late here but I will try and address your two points in the spirit you asked the questions.

As for the deterence factor being proved by the absence of certian crimes, I aggree with you. That probably does not surprize you since it's pretty obvious, but to try and win over the anti's with that argument would be very tough. Witness how difficult it is to get the point across here, and these folks AGREE with the point. Plus it is more compelling to most people to use an example where presence of the gun made a difference in a real crime than an example where the statisical possibility of a gun caused a crime not to happen, (a non-event).

For your point that we should give up some guns (whichever scary ones they may be) to sway public opinion, well that gets hashed over all the time around here. Believe it or not, there are examples in this country of registration of certain bad guns, and the registration was followed by prohibiton. Note I did not say confiscation, that is another thing. Anyway lots of folks here think that giving up guns that are funtionally identical to others is the same as admitting defeat in an ongoing battle for banning guns. You can laugh about it and call us conspiricy nuts, but we have seen proof of that desire. And frankly you show how the mainstream public opinion has influenced you. The AWB guns are different from other "OK" guns not by function, but only by arbitrary cosmetic differences that make them scary looking. I'm not going to try and persuade you on this, others have tried and you didn't listen. But as one who can tell how much you know about those guns from what you have written, I can tell you you are mistaken to think they are more dangerous than some other less inocuous gun. Believe it or not when I hear of some idiot shooting up some place with whatever weapon was used in the latest movie, I thank God he didn't use a plain old shotgun no matter how short the barrel was. You might be amazed at how easy it is to keep a cheap pump shotgun fully loaded as you fire it.

I hope I have spoken to the issues you were raising, Griz.

 

[Michigander]

mpd239

I hope you truly look into the truth, although the truth usually involves facts which you seem to find irrelevant.

If I had to guess, I would say you attended public school K-12, or mostly at least. I'm sorry.

It's tough. I was never an anti-gunner (and I'm not insuating you were/are), but I was educated in public schools for K-12 and when I graduated I thought I really had a well-rounded education and world-view. I thought I understood the "two-party" system. I thought I knew why my parents were die-hard liberal Democrats. Boy was I mistaken!

It took a while before I began looking into the inconsistencies of what I was taught in school and what I learned from TV. On the one hand, I used to be so open-minded, ready to evaluate any point of view, value any opinion and be tolerant of every "life style." The more I looked into the history of our nation, the Constitution and Bill of Rights especially, the more I accepted certain principles as fundemental truths. These principles can be found, if one chooses to earnestly seek them, in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The reason why I said the above is because I think we here at THR are trying to explain something to you in context and you are trying to understand it out of context (assuming you are truly trying to understand). I don't believe you have a grasp of the fundementals.

It's like a musician once told me: You can never really play Rock-n-Roll without a understanding the Blues.

In this case, you will never understand why every law-abiding citizen has an inalienable right to own any firearm of his/her choosing, even fully-automatic rifles and pistols, until you have a factual understanding of Amendment II by reviewing and understanding the documents leading up to it, documents written shortly thereafter, the original intent, what it means as it is written (hint: same as original intent), and natural law.

Now you can go on and on about how your arguement has nothing to do with Amendment II, but no matter how many time you say it, it is still not true. It has everything to do with it.

Every regulation, license, permission slip, tax, restriction, etc. is an infringement, period! No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Amendment II goes beyond simply enumerating an inalienable individual human right: it goes so far as to state clearly that this particular right shall not be infringed.

Restricting what size magazine I can have on my weapon is an infringement. Determining whether or not I can have a bayonet lug is an infringement. Folding stock? Yes or no? Infringement. Tax on ammunition? Infringement.

Good luck my friend, I hope your mind accepts these fundemental principles sooner, rather than later.

 

[Sheslinger]

…but I find weapons that can easily be modified to full automatic or utilize clips of more than 20 rounds to be excessive and dangerous.

An object is not dangerous. People who misuse it are. Should we outlaw chainsaws?

My guns that hold more than 20 rounds will never be used to hurt another human being unless I had no choice and acted in self-defense. Neither will be my guns that hold 5 rounds. What's the difference?

I think what all of us are trying to convince you of is that it should be up to an individual as to what guns they want to own. If they ever commit a crime with it (shoot someone 15 times or hit them over the head with it like a club), they should be held accountable, just like they would if they knifed someone. Criminals, on the other hand, could care less if they knife you or shoot you with an illegal gun. If they are ok with committing murder, what makes you think that any law prohibiting any particular gun will stop them? They will either ignore the law or simply get another gun. A solution by anti-gun crowd? They want to ultimately ban all guns. Did you know that they are trying to ban swords now in Australia? Murders will always exist, you can take away all possible tools of murder, and people will create new ones, or revert to choking to death, poisoning, throwing someone down the stairs.

One more thing - should we outlaw karate? Those people are walking assault weapons without any additional tools.

Baba Louie - awesome post. Someone at work recently told me the same thing, she is very temperamental and could not own a gun because she would use it if she was angry. I agree that people like that should not own guns, but I think it should be up to them to recognize their character weakness and make a decision not to own guns. At that point, however, it does not matter what gun it is.

The bottom line is that any gun will kill you just as dead, with proper shot placement. People have been killed with .22 for ages. So, there are really two sides to the argument - you either want to outlaw all guns or have no guns laws and punish crime as opposed to mere possession.

Sheslinger

 

[Stand_Watie]

Both Alan M. Dershowitz and Laurence H. Tribe disagree with your analysis that the Second Amendment is a ‘collective’ right...(Dershowitz and Tribe are Full Professors at Harvard Law School and, arguably, the finest Constitutional scholars of this century. Tribe's ‘American Constitutional Law’ is THE text on Constitutional law. Both are very liberal, hate guns, and in the case of Dershowitz would like to repeal the Second Amendment. Tribe is an attorney for the Democratic National Committee.)

It says something about their intellectual integrity to take a Constitutional stand that is against their personal predjudices. Something akin, I would say, to John Ashcroft coming out in support of Flynt's legal right to publish pornographic magazines.

 

[Ieyasu]

As a Polysci student, at an institution of good repute no less, the basics of this should be easy for you. First things first. Do you understand and accept the fact that governments, federal and state, do not and can not possess RIGHTS; that governments possess only POWERS?

Huh???

From the Articles of Conferation:
"the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the states"
and...
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and RIGHT, which is
not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United
States, in Congress assembled."

Proposed amendents from state conventions:
"North Carolina’s proposed amendment declared “[t]hat each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right.†South Carolina sought to prohibit “a construction that the states do not retain every power not expressly relinquished by them and vested in the general government of the Union.†Virginia’s proposal insisted “[t]hat each state in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution delegated to the congress of the United
States."

Constitutional Convention August 18-20, 1787:
In Convention. -- Mr. PINCKNEY submitted to the House, in order
to be referred to the committee of detail, the following
propositions: --
"The United States shall be forever considered as one body
corporate and politic in law, and entitled to all the RIGHTS,
privileges, and immunities, which to bodies corporate do or
ought to appertain."

"To fix, and permanently establish, the seat of government of
the United States, in Which they shall possess the exclusive
RIGHT of soil and jurisdiction."

Mr. KING moved to insert, before the word "power," word "sole,"
giving the United States the exclusive RIGHT to declare the
punishment of treason.

Mr. WILSON. In cases of a general nature, treason can only be
against the United States; and in such they should have the sole
RIGHT to declare the punishment;


The above quotes aren't flukes, there's plenty more where they came from.

 

[Gordon Fink]

Criminals … could [not] care less if they knife you or shoot you with an illegal gun. If they are ok with committing murder, what makes you think that any law prohibiting any particular gun will stop them?

I think it’s safe to say that mpd239 subscribes to the demonstrably false hypothesis that most murderers are normal, otherwise law-abiding people who just “snap†one day, which would be why the general population should be prohibited from owning “profusely deadly†firearms. In fact, this kind of killer is so vanishingly rare that entire episodes of Dateline and 48 Hours are devoted to their crimes, while the vast majority of murders (perpetrated by hardened, career criminals) barely gets a mention on the evening news.

~G. Fink

 

[RealGun]

Restricting what size magazine I can have on my weapon is an infringement. Determining whether or not I can have a bayonet lug is an infringement. Folding stock? Yes or no? Infringement. Tax on ammunition? Infringement.

Burst fire and full auto restrictions are infringements, as is prohibitive taxation. Look at Bushmasters police and military models and tell me I won't be outgunned in a worst case scenario. Assigning gun features to hunting and sport means the 2A purpose in the BoR is completely set aside. I might also want a Glock 17, 33 round, full auto. Tell me I don't need it. Then tell the police and military they don't need it. Same reason. The police objective is to have superior firepower. If the distinction between a criminal and a patriot blurs sufficiently, guess who will be outgunned.