My views on gun ownership

[crewchief]

Just making the post number 300 . I enjoy the fact that in 300 posts the thread starter has not effectively backed up or proven one just one of his misconceptions.

 

[DRZinn]

In the last 150 or so he hasn't shown his face. Least he knows when he's beaten.

 

[joe sixpack]

What a thread, took me over an hour to get through this!

Though I didn't see much progress towards his conversion, it's not the fault of those here who have posted. The poor guy just seemed to be maintaining his rightness no matter how misinformed and illogical it was.

Thanks to all who participated.

cheers, js

 

[RealGun]

Restricted weapons

my argument is that the sale of said weapons should be illegal. - mpd239

How about some solid reasoning why, and where the threshold for restriction should be. If there is no allowance for patriotic purposes, save your effort and do some more study on the Second Amendment. You would be in good company among legislators and judges, not to mention many gun owners who think they are only protecting a freedom of choice.

How about addressing why it is okay for police to have these guns and why the police are treated as a special class. Why is trust inherent in regard to a policeman? Should it be?

Should distrust and control be inherent in governing ordinary, honest citizens? Who's in charge here?

Do armed citizens have a role in maintaining or ensuring law and order, not to mention legitimate government?

Should abdication of power and responsibility to the police and other government forces be complete and total?

To whom should the police and military be accountable in real terms?

If really serious about taking a weapon out of circulation, should police be an exception? Hint - they have real machine guns, bona fide assault weapons. If criminals have these guns, it is very unlikely that they got them from civilians.

As far as I am concerned, this is not unlike nuclear proliferation and equally defiant of realistic, complete solutions. Who will be the first or the last to disarm? It is a cold war, and I hope it stays that way.

Anti-gun people are the same ones who would ask, why can't we all just get along? Well, until we clean up the gene pool, perfect parenting, and change human nature, someone has to be prepared to do the dirty work. Freedom has its downside, because according to history, there will be those who will want to take it away. Guns balance the scale. Those who don't consider patriotic use of a gun a possibility have their head in the sand.

To me, "the meek shall inherit the earth" means they will be buried six feet under. A criminal, as we would ordinarily define that term, is not the only threat nor represent the only encounter that would be a self defense scenario. Citizen rights and way of life also need to be defended. Best to have a competitive weapon in many hands to do that.

Citizens are meant to be soldiers. We don't intentionally send armies to battle with slingshots, peace petitions, or white flags. Accepting that makes a reading of the Second Amendment very easy to comprehend.

The extent to which the citizenry does not seem to handle the freedom to own guns might suggest that such a patriotic topic and necessary orientation should be taught in our schools, or that basic military weapons training, not necessarily service, should be mandatory for able-bodied boys and girls, when leaving high school, or a month out their summer break at a given age. Israel could provide a useful example, although I am not sure how they do it. First we have to agree that it is not the police's job to protect and defend in all cases, and that we should not abdicate responsibility to a potentially, indeed historically, corruptible group. A Governor's National Guard power is not incorruptible either. Again, the presence of guns in the hands of citizens is the balancing factor.

Perhaps I should draw attention to how powerless freed but unarmed blacks were, and why the desire to control and abuse them created so much concern about them having guns, i.e. full rights of citizenship.

That's my rant for the day. Or I should say the middle of the night. Must have been the late red beans and rice.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

You said it, RealGun.

 

[jefnvk]

I don' t know if this has been brought up, but weapons were not banned in the assault ban because of their connections to crime. A group of Congresspeople looked through a catalog and selected weapons they thought looked "scarey".
In fact, what are termed assault weapons in the ban are very seldom ever used by street gangs. More people are stabbed to death and killed by cars every year than guns.
Why don't we ban motor vehicles and bladed weapons?

Because that would be logical (and cars will never be banned).

And mpd, if you ever show back up, I'm still waiting for that explaination on how a bayonett lug makes the gun more deadly.

 

[goon]

I don't know if you are even still around, but I will reply to your points.
First off, read the US constitution. You will note that the Second Ammendment is grouped in with a bunch of other ammendments that identify individual rights. They don't grant these rights, since they belong to you from birth, but they do point SOME of them out.
Are you arguing that the First Ammendment doesn't guarantee your rights, but those of the government instead? Then why is the Second Ammendment any different? How is it that we have a bunch of Ammendments pointing out our rights, and they just stuck one in there for the government while they were at it?
I am not really what you would call a scholar, but I have read enough to know that Jefferson was a certified gun nut, and that many of the other founders also made statements affirming the importance of an armed populace. Do you really think that they meant to insure the right of the state to rule over the people and not the other way around?

Second, real machine guns are highly restricted, but can still be owned legally. When last I heard, there was only ever one crime involving a legally registered machine gun. Only one crime. That makes machine guns alot safer than baseball bats IMO. Most of what you see around are semi-automatic clones.
I will agree to your point that real military weapons are designed for combat. They can be used for other things, but they were designed to work as a weapon. That is why I want them. I don't want to meet an aggressor with a table tennis paddle, I want a weapon. You did say that you understand using a weapon to defend yourself, right? Are you ignoring the fact that handguns are weapons too? Browning Hi-Power, SIG, Glock, various 1911's, even a Smith and Wesson revolver all trace their roots to military weapons that were and are meant for combat. That is why we choose them as defensive weapons. I don't know about you, but if someone attacks me on the street with a butcher knife, club, or a MAC-10, I consider that to be combat. And for combat, you need an effective weapon.
Personally, I could really care less about hunting rifles and sporting arms. Why are they brought up all the time in these discussions? Who cares about skeet shooting? Do all those skeet shooters make my country and my neighborhood any safer?
Can anyone point out to me where it says in the Constitution "The right to keep and shoot skeet shall not be infringed" ?
Anyone?
(No offense to skeet shooters and hunters. Keep reading.)

You said that you are a bit of a liberal, and so am I. Just a little, sometimes...
For the most part, I am so liberal that I really could care less what anyone does as long as they aren't harming anyone other than themselves.
Being gay, smoking pot, shooting skeet, whatever... It is your life so live it how you want.
If that means owning an AK, have at it. As long as I ain't causing anyone any harm with it, how is anyone else's business? Can you point out one instance of my semi-automatic AK going out and knocking over a liquor store without my knowing it? I bet that neither you nor anyone else can. That is because the bottom line is that the gun doesn't do anything on its own. You could load it, chamber a round, lay it down on a table, and walk away and it would NEVER, EVER, EVER fire a round by itself.
Well, maybe a Jennings would...
But I digress...

Please respond. We have responded to your posts, so you at least owe us a response.
If you want to stick around and try to convince me that I am wrong, you can PM me and we will talk, or you can respond here.
Just don't turn and run. I respect a man who disagrees with me, but I don't respect one who doesn't have the guts to stand and do it to my face.


BTW - Gentlemen, I have taken the liberty of informing him of the life this thread has taken on and inviting him back to debate with us. His email is in his profile.
Hope that is cool with everyone.

 

[IndianaDean]

Actually Goon, you might not realize it, but your opinions suggest you are more Libertarian than anything.
I know because I'm Libertarian and that is basically our stance. We care less what everyone else is doing, as long as they are not harming others. Everyone has the right to pursue happiness in life as they see fit.
No one has the right to initiate force against another, except in self defense.
That includes forcing political ideas and opinions on others because a certain group doesn't like them.
Anti-gun groups, gay marriage, smoking laws, etc are all ideas being forced upon everyone by people who don't like them.
Whether I condone some of them or not, I don't have the right to force them not to practice those things because I don't like them.

 

[Stand_Watie]

Actually Goon, you might not realize it, but your opinions suggest you are more Libertarian than anything.
I know because I'm Libertarian and that is basically our stance

I'm a libertarian too and I agree with you that goon's sentiments reflect a libertarian stance. That said, a lot of libertarianism reflects what is commonly known as "classical liberalism", IE a belief in personal, individual freedom, when said freedom doesn't infringe on other's rights. The founding fathers of this country were as much "libertarians" as they were "republicans" by todays standards.

 

[RealGun]

The issue of restricted guns and features involves a lot more than freedom of choice and fighting those who would limit or destroy that freedom. It has a lot more to do with who should have such weapons and what the weapons purpose might be.

Many who want such guns or would reserve the right to own one have no apparent notion of reserving it for paramilitary purposes and are complacent about being personally limited on features they wouldn't normally use in practice or sport.

Once past a machine gun restriction, these guns are not true assault weapons. They are only a way to disingenuously appeal to ignorance and emotion in order to make further inroads into banning guns altogether. Basically, the citizenry (you and I) is not trusted to own them. There is assumption or disinformation that only a criminal would want one. Meanwhile citizens do not have the firepower to compete with potential police and military tactics. For political purposes, in the event of heavy handed governmental actions, it is important to characterize gun owners as criminals and terrorists, deserving of being crushed. There is no recognized need for a citizen to be a fully equipped infantryman except among citizens who understand government and world history and who sign up for their possible role in it.

It's not about hunting. It's not about sport. It's not about collecting. It is no different than why police have these advanced weapons and why some advanced guns are standard issue for the military. They are indeed guns meant for shooting people, but that doesn't mean a shot will ever be fired beyond practice or for the right reasons.

Before bothering to own such a weapon, the issue of legal places to fire it would need to be addressed. A number of gun laws would have to crumble to put the 2nd Amendment in its intended perspective. The issue cannot be argued very handily in the context of today's environment of gun control laws. Most who are young enough to have any interest pro or con were born into a world where "the people" had been put into "their place", with their guns assigned only to "sporting purposes".

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

smoking laws, etc are all ideas being forced upon everyone by people who don't like them.

Smoking is not a good example. A libertarian believes that you are free to do what you like, so long as it does not actually and directly harm others. I am a libertarian, and this is what I believe. Smoke, however, is a noxious substance, i.e., a pollutant in our common air. If you can do it where it's effects do not harm others, that's fine, and it's your absolute right (You are free to destroy your own lungs), but if you emit a noxious substance in a common enclosed area, this is a violation of the rights of others to breath un-poisoned air. Would you defend my right to walk into a restaurant spraying Raid insect killer near the table at which you and your family are eating? What if it pleased me to walk into a restaurant randomly flinging thumb tacks every which way? If you are not willing to defend my "right" to do that, then you shouldn't defend, as a libertarian, anyone's "right" to blow smoke in the same environment. It is a just power of communities to outlaw such violations of the common right to breath, which is inextricably related to the most basic of all rights, i.e., the right to life. I don't understand why libertarians use this as an example of their philosophy. It makes no sense.

 

[IndianaDean]

Thanks for the responses guys. I was thinking of Democratic liberalism.
As to smoking, I believe it is every business and establishment's right to ban smoking in their area.

I don't believe the government has the right to force business to ban it.

I hate smoking too. I willfully elect not to do business with establishments who allow it. There is one gun store in Indy for example, I will not go to because the owner blows his cigarette smoke all over the store.

If enough people are opposed to the smoking to stay away from doing business with places that allow it, those places will be done so much economic harm they'll have to change their policies.

But making it illegal is government interference, at least to me.

And BTW, ever watch Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t? They ran an episode showing there is NO scientific evidence second hand smoke causes cancer.

However, it is very obnoxious and I willfully elect to stay away from it.

As for weapons reserved for the military and law enforcement: Do we really want the forces the government would call in to squash and imprison us better armed than we are? Especially now with so many parallels in our current government to a certain western European country in the 1930s?

 

[goon]

After having thought about it for a couple years, I guess that I really am a libertarian. I am a little more liberal than most republicans, but I can't stand the liberal wussy Democrat type.
The liberals are mostly attracted to that extreme because of their fear of everything. They are so afraid that they attempt to legislate away anything that might cause a problem or conflict.
That is why they fear us and our guns. It doesn't have anything to do with crime, it has to do with our not being helpless. We can actually put up a fight if we are attacked instead of hiding in a closet with a cell phone while our loved ones are brutalized.
They figure that the only way for them to be safe is if everyone is as helpless as they are.
In my opinion, that attitude is the fundamental difference. Everything else is just the symptoms. That is the disease.

And on smoking, you guys are absolutely right. Smoking is someone else's concern as long as it doesn't harm me. I don't know what to do about it if they are smoking around their kids though. That definitely isn't OK IMO, but I don't know how to enforce a policy to keep people from doing that.
Smoking is just like owning a gun.
You do have the right to smoke, but you don't have the right to endanger others.
You do have the right to own and use guns, but you don't have the right to walk outside and fire one wildly down a busy street.
I like libertarians. They see their rights, but they still remember other peoples' rights too.

 

[RealGun]

I don't know what to do about it if they are smoking around their kids though. That definitely isn't OK IMO, but I don't know how to enforce a policy to keep people from doing that.

If you are going to go there, you're definitely a liberal, and positions on other social issues become pretty predictable. You then may also become hypocritical when it comes to gun rights. Let me do what I want, but let me intrude in other people's business. Let me pick and choose my issues and allow me to be inconsistent in philosophy. Allow me to "waffle".

Not saying you are a hypocrite, but if the shoe fits, you'll have to wear it.

Smoking is an addiction and needs to be treated as such. I see it as a poor example for this discussion.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

That is why they fear us and our guns. It doesn't have anything to do with crime, it has to do with our not being helpless. We can actually put up a fight if we are attacked instead of hiding in a closet with a cell phone while our loved ones are brutalized.
They figure that the only way for them to be safe is if everyone is as helpless as they are.
In my opinion, that attitude is the fundamental difference. Everything else is just the symptoms. That is the disease.

Goon, truer words have never been spoken. You are right on with that observation. Everything else is a symptom of that approach to life. This is why if you discover that a person is really antigun, 99% of the time you will know what their views on a dozen other subjects are as well. Liberalism (not speaking of classical liberalism, but rather I am speaking about what is also known as Leftism) is an emotional disorder.

 

[goon]

RealGun - call me whatever you feel is appropriate. I have thick skin.

Really though, you do have the right to smoke. That is your right.
You do not have the right to harm others. That violates their right to not be harmed by you.
In other words
"Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins."
With children, you have people who are too small and weak to stand up for their own rights. Someone has to step to the line for them.
As I said, I don't know how to enforce that one. You can't go into someone's home to make sure that they aren't smoking around their kids because that obviously violates their rights.

From your standpoint, it is apparently OK to beat your kids with a hammer as well.
Being stuck around secondhand smoke, while less messy than being beaten with an Estwing, is still harmful to your health.
It isn't OK to beat your kid with a hammer, or to cause them real harm in any other way (although spanking is an OK punishment IMO).
If I want my rights protected, I have to stand up for other peoples' rights as well, especially when those people are too small, weak, and young to do it for themselves.

I will concede that smoking is a disease. So is heroin addiction. They both still have very negative effects on children.
If you are smoking, or shooting up next to me, I can get up and leave. I am an adult, and I don't have to put up with your crap.
But a kid can't do that. They have to stay there and take it.

I don't consider my opinion on this one to be at all hypocritical.
To me, it would be hypocritical of me if I didn't take this position.
If you think you can convince me it is, have at it. I have an open mind on most things, but you do have your work cut out for you.

 

[chas_martel]

Goon,

What gives you the right to tell me what I can do to my kids?

PS: In case anyone cares, I am very liberal in the John Locke'en sense of the word.....

 

[goon]

chas_martel - Nothing at all.

Having said that, is it OK for someone to molest their kid? Is it OK for someone to beat their kid mercilessly with a length of log chain? Is it OK for you to drown your kid in the nearest river so you don't have to feed him? Is it OK for you to amuse yourself by burning your kid with cigarettes?
I personally feel that it is not.

But, hey, no one has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their kids, right?

 

[RealGun]

Until or unless smoking around a child becomes a crime, making a fuss about someone else's kids is kind of the ultimate anti-smoker. You know, there was a time, maybe two generations back by now, when smoking was far more common, before the liberals got in the act. Smoking around others was routine. My father smoked until I was about 12. If harm to children was so obvious, I don't think it would have taken science to point it out. Your extreme strawmen arguments re harming children are not winning the debate.

But then a liberal is often one who has a "there oughta be a law" reaction to things that are not his affair. If you are not careful, you will be setting and trying to enforce standards of parenting. It's more than clear that parents do not welcome interference, even from their own family, let alone the government. Off hand, truancy laws are the only thing I can think of that really tell people how to parent. Even then, home schooling is an option.

Carried to extreme, we'll be deciding who is qualified to be a parent and sterilizing everyone else.

The harm from tobacco smoke in the air is hard to quanitify. Although I wouldn't smoke around anyone who had no fresh air options, I think you are stating the harm as more matter of fact than it really is. Anti-smokers go ballistic if they can even smell the stuff. That's a product of brainwashing. The anti-smoking propaganda has had its effect, perhaps as much on non-smokers as smokers. People that don't smoke have become more and more anal about it.

If I moved my family to the San Fernando Valley, where you can see pollution, would I be legally liable for abusing my family? How far do we go with it, or is it better to just leave it alone. There are already many incentives not to smoke. I guess the ultimate would be to have medical insurance companies drop smokers altogether for some related conditions and test for those who lie about it. Insurance companies control just about everything else, if you think about it. Some have already tried to control gun ownership.

 

[Drjones]

To me, "the meek shall inherit the earth" means they will be buried six feet under.

We don't intentionally send armies to battle with slingshots, peace petitions, or white flags.

Yeah, but the french do!

 

[Lonestar.45]

Wow. Going back to the original post, I found this gem:

"But, assault weapons have little place in modern society. Rifles and shotguns are designed for hunting, for the most part, and semi-automatic handguns are efficient in the realm of self-defense. But weapons like an AK-47 or Uzi are not designed for either-- they are designed for warfare. How can you logically claim otherwise? An AK-47 is not meant to kill one attacker, or fell a deer-- it's meant to efficiently kill several men."


I've got news for you, Tonto. The 2nd Amendment has zero to do with hunting deer, and everything to do with personal protection, and yes, even warfare.

As one poster's sig line states, "If you think the 2nd Amendment applies only to the National Guard, you must also think the 1st Amendment applies only to the Goverment Printing Office", or some such. Pretty dead on logic, in my opinion.

 

[goon]

It doesn't have anything to do with being an anti-smoker. I will admit that I do hate cigarettes. Both of my parents have smoked since their late teens and they are both dealing with the health consequences of it. I actually don't think my dad will ever see 60 because of it and my mom isn't much better. Having said that, it is their choice to smoke. They are adults, and they choose to do it. I hate watching them kill themselves, but it is their lives.

You do have the right to smoke, but like any other right, there is a responsibility that comes with it.

You have the right to own a gun. You can take that gun to a safe area and shoot it at targets, you can hunt with it, or you can carry it and use it to defend yourself and your loved ones. As long as you are not doing anything to endanger anyone else with that gun, I totally support you having said gun.
You do not have the right to take that gun and shoot up a retirement home. You have a responsibility to not harm other people with that gun.

Why should smoking be any different? You do have the right to smoke, but if you choose to smoke you also have a responsibility to do it in such a way that it does not cause any harm to anyone else.
I know that smoking is a hot-button issue with some people, but it still doesn't get a free pass from me.

As I said, there really isn't a way to enforce a law preventing you from smoking around your kids without violating peoples' rights. There never will be a way to enforce a law like that, and even beyond that, no one should be able to tell you what you can do in your own home.

But you do have a responsibility just the same. That is all I am saying.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

But then a liberal is often one who has a "there oughta be a law" reaction to things that are not his affair.

No, liberals are the ones who prefer a state law to a county ordinance, and prefer a federal law to a state law. Laws that prevent the release of noxious fumes into enclosed occupied spaces are examples of good local government (a libertarian is not against laws, per se), but as a conservative/libertarian, I prefer them to be local laws, not state wide, and not federal (This way, you can choose to move to the next county or town if you cannot get the laws changed to your liking). The laws should not prevent smoking (such a law would be a busybody type law, which conservatives/libertarians such as myself find abhorrent), but only smoking when it violates the rights of others to assemble in public accommodations without being choked.

Smokers are addicted to the smoke, so they have a positive association with breathing it in, and usually cannot understand the response of others to it. This is not a normal reaction to smoke, however. Non-addicted people find breathing smoke in close quarters to be a very unpleasant and choking experience. It is clearly a violation of our right to breathable air, which is essential for health and life.