Help me with this gun control argument

[Ruggles]

Great now the PC movement has reached a point where I am being called a bigot towards felons because I do not desire a change in the law that will allow them firearms legally.

Can't do the time (and other penalties) do not do the crime. Anybody want to start listing felonies where the perpetrator had no liability in his/her actions. If they had liability then they pay the price.

Amazing that in 40 years I never committed a felony, to hear it here they are just everywhere waiting to pounce on me.

 

[Ruggles]

"Considerable amounts of tax payers' money is being spent on background checks which have proven ineffective as a crime deterrent. The money would be better spent somewhere else."

I doubt anyone could ever prove they were ineffective. The very nature of a background check keeps a majority of folks who know they will not pass from ever trying to pass one thus their success or failure is not easily measurable. Using the percent of people failing background check (as I have seen used in this debate in the past) is a very small window at best into their success or failure.

 

[Ruggles]

"Ned's brother-in-law is a prime example of how this is infringement. He, and many others, don't deserve such tyranny."

Tyranny? The man committed a felony in our society, we have a right to hold him accountable in the way we as a society see fit to do so. This is one of the ways we have chosen to do so. Hardly Tyranny in my book.

 

[Ned Kelly]

I believe that a true democracy will eventually criminalize everyone if it hasn't already worked halfway towards its goal.

It has been a trick used for thousands of years to isolate minority groups and take away their rights. In this case to blame those minorities for people they never killed.

It reminds me of what we have seen happen to many groups of people in history such as Native Americans, Jews, Armenian christians etc etc. They were the minority and in a society where majority rules, they lose.



Insane isnt enough. Maybe its those with Post traumatic stress? Perhaps the Bipolar ones? Maybe the alcoholics? Maybe if a person gets a speeding ticket they should lose their rights?

I mean safety is more important than freedom. Authority has always told us that. perhaps our government is right?.....

 

[archigos]

The only way to enforce a law prohibiting dangerous persons from possessing firearms is to keep them in prison. Period.
Background checks do not work because guns can be stolen, sold, or manufactured.
There is no provision in the Constitution that excludes ex-cons from the term "People". The problem is far greater than gun control - it is the entire penile system and our failure as a people to provide for its proper application.

 

[Ruggles]

"Background checks do not work because guns can be stolen, sold, or manufactured."

They do not work 100% but they do work to a degree, just as all laws do.

"There is no provision in the Constitution that excludes ex-cons from the term "People". "

Just because it is or is not in the original document does not mean that we can not add or subtract it from that document. It is a living breathing document after all, and it was designed to be so.

 

[Ned Kelly]

They do not work 100% but they do work to a degree, just as all laws do.

Laws take away freedom. That is their sole purpose. In some instances it can be beneficial but in others it becomes a Pandemic.

Our ancestors lived well enough with only a fraction of the laws we have now.

Is it really worth giving up yours and everyone elses freedom just so you can feel a little safer?

Perhaps automobiles should be banned? Millions of lives could be saved in exchange for people losing a convenience, not a right.

I would say alcohol but it didn't work to well. Organized crime got a powerful boost to their coffers by creating a wonderful black market ring on alcohol.

Prohibition ended because criminals were winning the fight by evolving their behaviour to make money from the situation.

The same thing will happen with firearms or more than likely ammunition if they (lawmakers and president) continue the path they are going on.

 

[CoRoMo]

It's quite apparent that you are all too eager to forfeit liberty for a little perceived safety.

Safety hasn't increased with the implementation of this type of gun control, but the perception of it comforts you.

Safety wasn't lacking before the implementation of this type of gun control, but facts don't matter when feelings prevail.

Your 'progressive' ideology of our Constitution is the very threat to our every freedom.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Just because it is or is not in the original document does not mean that we can not add or subtract it from that document. It is a living breathing document after all, and it was designed to be so.

I can't believe I read that on a gun forum. The "living" document praise is the classic antis justification to gut the 2nd. "After all the writers could never have anticipated assault weapons"

 

[Ruggles]

"I can't believe I read that on a gun forum. The "living" document praise is the classic antis justification to gut the 2nd. "After all the writers could never have anticipated assault weapons"

Tell that to the slaves, or women voters etc.....................of course it is living and was designed to be that way. Just because the antis use it in their context does not mean it is not true in other context.

 

[Ruggles]

"It's quite apparent that you are all too eager to forfeit liberty for a little perceived safety."

Do you believe in having to obtain a DL to legally drive? That is trading "freedom" for safety is it not? Or having to get get a license to practice medicine? How about prescribing drugs? Or being a airline pilot? Same train of thought my friend.

Your train of thought would lead to gun vending machines on the corner. I mean why should I even have to talk to anyone when I buy a gun, that's an infringement on my rights correct? Screw any safety concerns for society my rights trump all of those!

 

[CoRoMo]

Do you believe in having to obtain a DL to legally drive?

Not even close. Driving isn't a right. That paltry thought has been swatted down on this site time and again, for years on end. Driving is a privilege. Remember that.

It's quite simple.

• The Constitution acknowledges our human rights.
• It did not grant them to us like privileges.
• The Constitution set limits on the government.
• The 2nd Amendment is one of the nonnegotiable rights for which the government was restricted from dabbling with.

The 'progressive' ideology and willingness to trade liberty for safety have been the means by which government has successfully violated those limits.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Is this just a rewind of the last anti gun rights thread?
Or is it different players this time? lol

 

[Ruggles]

"Our ancestors lived well enough with only a fraction of the laws we have now. "

In a time very different from ours. Take the internet, should their be any laws governing it at all? Not at issue in days past but now it is. What occured 50, 100 and 200 years ago is not what we should base all of our laws on today.

"Is it really worth giving up yours and everyone elses freedom just so you can feel a little safer?"

In a number of instances yes. Go to the airport recently? Security measures sure do impede on my freedom, should I still have to go thru them? Yes for the safety of everyone else on the plane. I expect the same from the other passengers.

I understand your point but that line (safety / freedom) is drawn everyday in our lives. The real debate is where to draw that line not that it is drawn at all.

"Perhaps automobiles should be banned? Millions of lives could be saved in exchange for people losing a convenience, not a right."

Not at all, the bads that autos bring are much outweighed by the good that they bring. Same with firearms IMO. And just as we regulate the ownership and use of automobiles we do and should with firearms. I no more support your right to express your freedom by driving 120mph thru my neighborhood than I do you buying a Stinger GTA missile. There are laws that I support that say you can not do those things. Am I wrong for supporting these laws?

 

[Ruggles]

"Not even close. Driving isn't a right. That paltry thought has been swatted down on this site time and again, for years on end."

Nor is unregulated ownership of firearms. Care to show where the 2nd A says anything about there being no control or regulation on firearm ownership? Controlling does not = infringing. If you think it does then you would have to support ownership of any type of weapon system. Do you? If not where do you draw the line?

The DL example has been used for years because it does fit in the debate.

 

[runrabbitrun]

Funny slaves and women voters have rights today.
Seems the BOR is working as intended.

I think a lot of guns where involved to ensure those rights too.

 

[Ruggles]

"Is this just a rewind of the last anti gun rights thread?
Or is it different players this time? lol"

Not anti at all just good common sense gun laws.

2 extremes in this debate (I guess every debate really)

1. All firearms should be banned from private ownership
2. No firearms should be banned from private ownership

I refuse to be at either extreme, I am open minded enough to see that there is a common sense middle ground.

 

[Ruggles]

"Funny slaves and women voters have rights today.
Seems the BOR is working as intended."

True, but laws and regulations laid down by the founders in the Constitution had to be changed and added too for this to happen. Thus those living breathing documents rightfully changed with the times.

 

[CoRoMo]

Care to show where the 2nd A says anything about there being no control or regulation on firearm ownership? Controlling does not = infringing.

Infringe simply means to encroach upon. To step within the boundary of. To trespass. To dabble with.

The government, that you are so eager to entrust with an authority it was never granted, has dabbled with the 2nd Amendment quite enough. Government wandered onto that ground, and it was specifically restricted from doing so. Controlling is the most extreme form of infringement.

Your ideology has given government and those who hate freedom, the means to limit of our liberties... to the cheers and applause of ignorance.

 

[archigos]

Ruggles, stop trolling.

 

[Rockwell1]

The government was never granted the power or the means to acquire that power at its founding.

There is no provision in the Constitution that excludes ex-cons from the term "People".

Unfortunately there is

No person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property except by due process of law

When the founders wrote the Constitution violent criminals were either imprisoned for life ( as in literally until they died) or executed. they weren't let back out into society in 3 to 5 years and there was no need to worry about giving them their guns back.

Prior to 1968 ( not sure of the date) there was no restriction on violent criminals owning firearms but the crime rate was much lower. Now 16(?) years post Brady the crime rate is still going up our criminals are be coming more violent, guns are (in theory) more difficult to obtain. And somehow we continue to blame the guns and not society....HMMMMm gotta wonder about that

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Forgetting Ruggles nonsense for a moment[comparing the abolishment of slavery with 2nd restrictions-adding freedoms is a lot different then removing freedoms],who exactly defines a felony? It is not a well defined word or act,it is simply what the politicians of the day wish to call it-and it allows them to strip away your most fundamental rights. There is no reason mailing a letter with insufficient postage[a Federal offense!] could not be a felony tomorrow. It is much to vague to carry the weight it does. And I would be willing to bet many of the my sh** don't stink types have committed felony's at some point in their lives-they just didn't get caught

 

[Ned Kelly]

Crime and murder will never go away. Look at England, Australia, Germany. The criminal will always prey on the defenseless. Gun laws help organized crime do things more organized. I for one would seem to be of an opinion that a petite woman would see the need to have an equalizer more readily than the Burley male.

That's what the gun does. It stopped the people of the East from making their Eternal raids into eastern europe. It stopped the mighty armored knights and skilled swordsmen and pikemen of the middle ages.

With a gun a person who is not of the strongest physical build necessary to use the martial weapons of ages past could now stand against them.

A person who is not strong enough to pull back a longbow or cock an arbalest can outrange both.

The gun is a good thing.

Without it the powers of government would oppress the people like they always have.

We say that civilians should not have nukes but government should


We are not any safer trusting our lives under the authority of global super powers with itching fingers on the button than we are if we were allowed to have the nukes ourselves.

If a weapon is so powerful that civilians shouldn't be allowed to use it than maybe the government shouldn't be using it either.

We have a right to bear arms. Not hunting rifles. During the imperial age such weapons as volley guns, cannon, pepper box rifles and chain-fire muskets existed, There was a powerful air rifle in the Austrian army that could fire 20 shots a minute.

The founding fathers never seemed concerned to restrict them and during an age when technology was moving faster than it ever had to that time I am sure they knew that personal arms would become more powerful and efficient.

 

[Ruggles]

"Infringe simply means to encroach upon. To step within the boundary of. To trespass. To dabble with.

So your understanding of shall not infringe ends where? Where is the entry point of government regulation & control in your view regarding the private ownership of firearms? Is there one or do you and I have the right to own whichever armament we choose to? A fully auto M2, a an M1 MBT, AH64 as was suggested on a earlier post of this type. How about a fully armed B52 or Ageis class cruiser. I am sure you would draw the line of private ownership somewhere right?

 

[Ruggles]

"Forgetting Ruggles nonsense for a moment[comparing the abolishment of slavery with 2nd restrictions-adding freedoms is a lot different then removing freedoms]"

What exactly is the difference legally? When speaking of issues regarding the changing of our founding documents and laws I see absolutely no difference between adding or removing. The end result is a changed document.