Who should be allowed to purchase guns?

[Pafrmu]

Riiiiiight. Next week the two of you will be saying that if we don't give up our evil black rifles, the popular majority will ban everything including our skeet guns and our grandchildren won't be able to go quail hunting

Its for the children, you know.

There you go again. Its like there is a group on THR that share only one brain and they keep repeating the same tired worn out line again and again.

The poll numbers say it all.

 

[NineseveN]

I hate to break it to you... majority does rule. Majority rule has amended the constitution before and can do so again...and that is the direction we are heading. It will not take many polls where 80-90 of people favor gun control to sway politicians whose main goal is to get re-elected. Slavery was VERY popular also and also considered a "god given right". Look how that ended (thank goodness).

The process is not a simple "majority rules" my friend...your view is skewed wayyy off center.

 

[NineseveN]

There you go again. Its like there is a group on THR that share only one brain and they keep repeating the same tired worn out line again and again.

The poll numbers say it all.

And yet, most of you semi-gungrabbers and half-way gunowners just registered in the last month or two. I respect the opinions of others, but I think somewhere there sits a lonely bridge. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Playboy, lest you forget:

1. a.) Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
b.) Anyone who says the slippery slope argument holds no ground has not been paying attention. I am but a young'un here as I am 23 and have only been interested in the gun control debate for about 13 years. Yet in that time, I have read bills presented to Congress for debate that would have registered handguns, registered all firearms, banned handguns, banned cheap guns, banned so called "assault weapons," in varying degrees including at times the prohibition of pump action and semi-automatic shotguns, banned sniper rifles in such vague terms that is could include the majority of hunting and sporting rifles in common use, banned hollow point ammunition, and banned so called "armor piercing" or "cop killer" ammunition, also vague enough to include nearly every rifle caliber existant. So, basically they have tried to ban or register big guns, small guns, cheap guns, and expensive guns. That doesn't leave very much. And in a rare fit of honestly, I believe it was Senator Feistein who showed her true colors when she told an interviewer that she would support the immediate confiscation of all firearms from the general public if she could get the votes. Slippery slope is very, very real.

2. Majority does rule, but minorities are guaranteed rights. The Bill of Rights exists for the minorities, not for the majority. And it was always intended to be beyond their capability to restrict these rights from the minority. The only way to do it legally according to the intention of the Founding Fathers would be to completely rewrite the Constitution. And even then, these rights were assumed to be provided by a higher power, be it God, or whatever--they are out of reach of you or the federal government to restrict or deny these rights to me or anyone else. The majority can refuse to acknowlege my right and even strike it from the U.S Constitution, but that does not mean I do not possess it. The majority can also decide you do not have the right to practice the religion of your choice, do not have the right to be secure in your person and possessions, or the right to a public trial with a jury of your peers. This isn't going to stop you from feeling violated when denied these rights and I doubt seriously if you would stop worshipping the deity of your choice as well. Similarly, I am not going to hand in my firearms because the government no longer acknowledges my right to own them and I am going to defend myself when people, be they common subjects or Kevlar clad thugs with submachineguns come to take them from me. Stealing is stealing and is wrong.

3. Slavery was never recognized as God given right in the Bill of Rights. You could argue as a so-called God given right it exists without acknowledgement, but then, it is hard to keep an armed man as a slave. Slavery denies another all basic human rights and that is why it is considered wrong. Ownership of a firearm doesn't infringe on anybody's rights. In fact, it protects them. It can not, therefore, be discarded on the same grounds as slavery. Speaking of slavery, gun control has its roots in the worst form of racism. You are supposedly thankful of slavery's demise yet forget that we are only closer to slavery ourselves when we compromise our individual liberties. You might want to avoid slavery or race as supporting evidence arguing in support of gun control.

4. Prohibition worked. O wait, it didn't. The drug war is working out fine. O wait, it's not. Yeah the government is really good at preventing the general population from gaining access to prohibited substances. Something tells me gun control will share the same fate. If not, I don't plan to graze with the sheeple long enough to find out.

5. And finally, in a display of utter stupidity, you take the position held by the majority, including most school text books and the media, and then accuse me and those who share my beliefs of being the ones merely accepting what they are fed. Remove thy beam...

 

[Pafrmu]

And yet, most of you semi-gungrabbers and half-way gunowners just registered in the last month or two. I respect the opinions of others, but I think somewhere there sits a lonely bridge. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Elitism at its finest. If I am a troll under a bridge, you are a troll on top of a mountain. And maybe if I stick around long enough, I will climb the mountain as you have.

The poll shows that more repect and share my opinions than yours.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

And yet, most of you semi-gungrabbers and half-way gunowners just registered in the last month or two. I respect the opinions of others, but I think somewhere there sits a lonely bridge. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

It just tickles me when people accuse me of being a troll just because I do not bow down to their innane arguments. the old "If you don't agree with me you most not be real". Same old. same old...it just shows they have nothing to say that can stand scrutiny.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

The poll shows that more repect and share my opinions than yours.

And the majority is always right

This is why we need the Bill of Rights. Because some are convinced that being in the majority automatically justifies their position and entitles them to force it onto others.

What is right isn't always popular and what is popular isn't always right.

 

[NineseveN]

...if the shoe fits, welcome to the ball Cinderella.

 

[cracked butt]

There you go again. Its like there is a group on THR that share only one brain and they keep repeating the same tired worn out line again and again.

My position is actually a very well thought out one versus your drivel.

Evil black rifle= canary in the coal mine. When the EBR is on the chopping block, the rest of your guns are in trouble.

The poll numbers say it all.

You might want to ask Al Gore and Tom Daschle about the positions they both held politically and employmentwise and ask what voting block put them out of business. The poll numbers say it all.

 

[M92FS]

voted for : Everyone minus felons and children

 

[sumpnz]

The poll shows that more repect and share my opinions than yours.

I don't give a hoot what the polls say. Considering that I could probably rig the questions in a poll so that it showed most people agree that an elephant could hang over cliff with just its tail tied to a dandelion for support I really don't put any stock in the results of polls.

Oh and Playboy and Pafrmu, people aren't calling you trolls because you disagree with the prevailing opinion on this board. It's becuase you make inflamatory remarks for the purpose of eliciting types of reactions.

E.g.

Its seems they would rather have no guns than to live in a world where just felons and children would be excluded from purchasing firearms.

I hate to break it to you... majority does rule. Majority rule has amended the constitution before and can do so again...and that is the direction we are heading. It will not take many polls where 80-90 of people favor gun control to sway politicians whose main goal is to get re-elected. Slavery was VERY popular also and also considered a "god given right". Look how that ended (thank goodness).

There you go again. Its like there is a group on THR that share only one brain and they keep repeating the same tired worn out line again and again.

 

[Pafrmu]

My position is actually a very well thought out one versus your drivel.:

Just because I agree with you 98% and not 100% doesn't make my position drivel.

Evil black rifle= canary in the coal mine. When the EBR is on the chopping block, the rest of your guns are in trouble.

The only way they will get my EBR is from my cold dead hands

You might want to ask Al Gore and Tom Daschle about the positions they both held politically and employmentwise and ask what voting block put them out of business. The poll numbers say it all.

Can't agree more, I was one that put them out of business.

 

[cracked butt]

The only way they will get my EBR is from my cold dead hands

No. You will first register it and then down the road stand in line to turn it in yourself, just like everyone else has done in places across the country where guns were banned. Don't even try to humor me with 'cold dead hands' fantasies.

 

[Drewtam]

For those of you on the disarming felons side of the fence, I'll ask this again:

Explain to me why gun control is a good restriction to place on felons and more importantly, why it works on them yet it does not work on any other group within society? What problem does it actually solve and how does it solve it?


If we cannot answer those questions, then disarming felons does no good other than to make some people pull the wool over their own eyes and feel safer, without actualy making them safer or accomplishing anything of substance for that matter.

Your right, if a (violent) felon is loose, then nothing will prevent him from obtaining a firearm irregardless of the law.


But thats not the point, is it?
Did the law PREVENT them from commiting murder, rape, assualt, etc?
Did the law work to stop them from commiting a crime the SECOND- THIRD- FOURTH time?!
Clearly NOT!
So what is the point of those laws; they are to no effect!

Using your very standard, you make all laws void. I've seen the quote "It may be that all laws are useless, the virtuous man will do whats right and has no need for them, and the criminal could care less" (I paraphrase, badly, from memory).

But rather, I see law as the standard created for what is right and wrong (with all the moral implications that has). In our case, it is a standard we get to help decide, by the means of our beloved republic.
So then, we can create the standard that, as a consequence of previous actions, it is not 'right' for them to permitted to bear arms.

The technicalities of implementing this will vary: Do we allow forgiveness? What constitutes "violent"? Does the age at the time of the crime matter? etc.


Drew

PS
"A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I read this as a limitation on Federal power, soooo there should never be any NICs (except run by the states), or Federal crime, or Federally banned weapons, no NFA or anything. It ought to be a State by State issue.

 

[Pafrmu]

There you go again. Its like there is a group on THR that share only one brain and they keep repeating the same tired worn out line again and again.

The poll numbers say it all.

I appologize for this statement. I wronged you all that share this view and I am sorry.

 

[Pafrmu]

No. You will first register it and then down the road stand in line to turn it in yourself, just like everyone else has done in places across the country where guns were banned. Don't even try to humor me with 'cold dead hands' fantasies.

You are right. Thats because I am a law abiding citizen and obey the laws unless they are morally wrong. (aka I would have hidden Jews and Fugitive Slaves.)

 

[Pafrmu]

Oh and Playboy and Pafrmu, people aren't calling you trolls because you disagree with the prevailing opinion on this board. It's becuase you make inflamatory remarks for the purpose of eliciting types of reactions.

E.g.

If your going to stand and judge me, please use the inflammatory comments against myself in your decision.

And besides I have shown the opinion to be exclusive to a small portion the THR users.

 

[cosine]

I'm bowing out of this one.

Edit: Removed angry content, put foot in mouth.

 

[NineseveN]

On a side note:
It doesn't matter what I think of playboy or that other guy with the funny name or anyone else for that matter. We have had a lot of folks register since I'd say November, and a lot of them are a bit different than I am used to seeing around here. I am sure many members said the same or similar about me when I first joined...of course, I had all of 24 posts as I recall the first 10 months I belonged to this site, and none of them were on hot political issues nor did they fly in the face of what a lot of folks here stand for...so perhaps there's a difference worth noting. not that I would suggest someone else follow the same path as I did, just adding it for reference. I had easily 2-300 posts about guns before I delved into other matters.

The way I see it, there is a difference between someone that owns guns and enjoys that "privilege" and a true supporter of the RKBA. Rights activists and advocates are generally extremists by their very nature, the rest just enjoy the freedoms they fight for, even if they don't understand or even always agree with the dialogue.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Drewtam, the problem is that legal and illegal is not always synonomous with right and wrong. Making something illegal does not make it wrong. And vise versa. Our justice system attempts to define morality through law, but it isn't always successful.

The first issue here is that people shouldn't be judged and punished until after they have commited the crime. Punishing a man by restricting his right to own a firearm because he might repeat his offense is contrary to this and it is wrong.
In the case of rape and murder, the laws exist not because we believe they will prevent a lot of people from commiting these crimes, but to give us a standard to judge them for their deviant behavior. So yes, most laws are reactionary. This doesn't mean all laws are worthless but it doesn't justify each law either. The entire judicial system is reactionary and it is supposed to be. But the whole point of gun control is supposedly to make society safer. It is supposed to prevent more than punish, a goal it shares with such doomed measures as Prohibition and, thus far, the drug war. That is why you hear the "if it saves one life" and "do it for the children" speal.
Even if it was to provide a moral code, it is completely out of line with the ideals on which this country is based, that of independence and self-determination. Do you really think banning a certain class of firearms makes them morally apprehensible and wrong? How is prohibiting an entire class of citizens any more morally defensible? Remember, if you make enough laws, eventually everyone becomes a criminal.

Defining right and wrong is the second issue and it is much more complex because it varies greatly. But I believe that the foundation of this country and the recorded voice of the Founding Fathers would have us error on the side of personal liberty and punish those who abuse it than restrict personal liberty as a preventive measure in the hopes of gaining safety. To use the well known words of Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

It doesn't matter what I think of you or playboy or that other guy with the funny name. We have had a lot of folks register since I'd say November, and a lot of them are a bit different than I am used to seeing around here.

The way I see it, these is a difference between someone that owns guns and enjoys that "privilege" and a true supporter of the RKBA. Rights activists and advocates are generally extremists by their very nature, the rest just enjoy the freedoms they fight for, even if they don't understand or even always agree with the dialogue.

Hey, if you must shorten my name please call me penguin instead of playboy...playboy makes me sound cheap and promiscuous.

Did I spell promiscuous right? This dang board needs a spell check feature.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Penguin? I think where we disagree is more basic than what restrictions "should be applied". I think where we disagree is that I am sure gun control is counter productive, and you appear to think it may have good benefits. Gun control does NOT work. Gun freedom does. More guns equals less crime. Any repeatable statistics prove that. whether it is prohibiting them, or restricting carry, the more strict the controls, the more unarmed victims we provide to criminals.

There are samples around the world of "gun free zones" that do not work, and "free gun zones" that do. I do not intend to compare a war zone to a country at peace, so putting Iraq in this conversation is a waste of time. War, and Crime are different, and any comparison is a waste of time.

Thank you to my fellow THR members for allowing me to use this little piece of our brain. It seems to me to have a really good logic program in operation

As far as a minority doing anything to change things. Check out the recent changes in religious freedoms. I heard some where that fourteen percent in our country are athiest, but they are so vocal they are removing the "christ" from christmas, it is now a "winter festival" in a lot of places. They have removed prayer from schools (except silent ones during tests). They have removed the words "In God we trust" from a lot of public places. They are doing this because they are vocal about it. I hope we as gun lovers can do as well.

 

[Janitor]

IMHO - If someone has committed a crime that's so bad we don't trust them with a gun...why are they allowed out of prison?

+1 RotR

There are far too many felonies on the books in the first place. In the second, if somebody is guilty of a violent crime, whether or not they've served their time, conditions for legal carry don't affect them or their attitude towards weapons. They'll carry anyway.

One more time - this is all covered in the constitiution. Noplace in that document does it say:

- "If they've not been convicted of a certain level crime."
- "If they're over 16 years old."
- "If they have the use of all their limbs."

In fact, if my failing memory serves me right, the 2nd ammendment doesn't even have the word "if" in it at all.

 

[1911 guy]

I voted for everyone.

While I admit to not being crazy about the idea of voilent felons being able to purchase guns, our legal system does not allow for any differentiation between non-violent vs. violent offenders and seems to be moving in the direction of making nearly anything a felony. Better to let some abuse freedom than to squash it for everyone.

 

[beaucoup ammo]

Allowances Are Made Between The Two

Governor Timothy Kaine (Virginia) says he'll do as his Democratic predecessor, Mark Warner, did in restoring the voting rights of non-violent felons.

There are many acknowledged differences between violent and non violent felons within the legal system.

Take Care