Help me with this gun control argument

[Ruggles]

"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."

So......if nukes were present in the general population for the past 6 decades or so no one (including or mid east friends) would have used one? I only ask because we have not had a nuke used in anger since 1945, those itchy government fingers seem to have pretty good control over themselves.

That sir was a really uneducated comment at best.

Again and again I will say it, to favor some common sense gun control does not mean I do not favor private ownership of firearms. I do not favor a new AWB at all, I support (and have had for a decade) my CCW. I own firearms (PS90, AR etc) that the antis would love to ban. To label me and others like me as antis and trolls because I do not think the total deregulation of firearms is a sane ideal is simple minded at best.

Face it folks gun laws to work to a degree (to what degree is greatly debatable) , to say otherwise flys in the face of common sense.

 

[Ruggles]

"The gun is a great thing."


Now it reads even better.

 

[Ruggles]

"Ruggles, stop trolling."

Where oh where am I trolling? Trolls make extreme comments to get a reaction for the sake of that reaction, if anything my thoughts on this matter are the thoughts of most people.

Common sense applied to gun laws that protect the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms, protect the safety of society and to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms legally to ply their trade.

Hardly radical stuff and hardly trolling.

 

[Ned Kelly]

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?

It makes one wonder why the world governments feel they can use these weapons any more responsibly than we can.

I mean look at what they do with them. They kill millions of people with them every year. Did all those people deserve to die? How many non-combatants were killed? The US is considered to be the most humane of any warring nation yet it still uses its weapons abusively from time to time. (remember Serbia)

But We can trust the world governments to do the proper thing!!.. Right?

I would trust a hundred million civilians armed with rocket launchers, mortars and machine guns to do the right thing with it, before I would a world government.

 

[Ruggles]

"It makes one wonder why the world governments feel they can use these weapons any more responsibly than we can.

I mean look at what they do with them. They kill millions of people with them every year. Did all those people deserve to die? How many non-combatants were killed? The US is considered to be the most humane of any warring nation yet it still uses its weapons abusively from time to time. (remember Serbia)

But We can trust the world governments to do the proper thing!!.. Right?

I would trust a hundred million civilians armed with rocket launchers, mortars and machine guns to do the right thing with it, before I would a world government."

You really don't like or trust the U.S. Govt do you? I do and with good reason. it is a complex world full of more complexed problems. It is easy to sit back and criticize when you have no responsibility to resolve these types of issues isn't it?

 

[FiremanBob]

If carrying weapons were the norm, there would be far fewer violent felons around to worry about, and the ones who were convicted for non-violent crimes and "paid their debt to society" would be fine to own guns again:

1. fewer would-be thugs would try to rob people if they knew the "victim" might successfully defend himself, so they wouldn't become felons;

2. those who don't learn the first time(s) would soon end up dead from the weapon of an intended victim.

Both scenarios would vastly improve the common welfare, as the Founders used to call it.

 

[Ned Kelly]

You really don't like or trust the U.S. Govt do you? I do and with good reason. it is a complex world full of more complexed problems. It is easy to sit back and criticize when you have no responsibility to resolve these types of issues isn't it?

The best way for the US to resolve a lot of its problems is to stop trying to "help" whenever something happens whether foreign or domestic.

We would save ourselves a lot of headaches and taxpayers money.

 

[archigos]

Ruggles, stop spamming.

 

[Rockwell1]

You really don't like or trust the U.S. Govt do you?

nope

Your train of thought would lead to gun vending machines on the corner.

That wood be soooooooo kewel

 

[Ruggles]

"The best way for the US to resolve a lot of its problems is to stop trying to "help" whenever something happens whether foreign or domestic.

We would save ourselves a lot of headaches and taxpayers money."

Isolationism, such a successful history.........

 

[Ruggles]

"Ruggles, stop spamming."

Well since you told me too and all........

 

[Ruggles]

"You really don't like or trust the U.S. Govt do you?
nope "

There is always living in the wilds of the mountains. I think the Unabomber would rent you his little shack. I am sure it already comes decorated with all those cool "My government is evil" posters and all......

 

[Ruggles]

"Ruggles, stop spamming.""

BTW I joined the forum before you and you have more post than I do so.........

 

[jim in Anchorage]

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.

Thats like saying adding a bedroom to your house is the same as going in the basement and attacking the foundation with a jack hammer The bill of rights are fundamental rights not to be denied to citizens.

The reason you are getting heat here is not because you support background checks-that seems to run about 50-50-but because if you read your posts you seem to think treating the Constitution like silly putty is OK-"well that worked in the past,but lets try this new version".
This all started with "felons"[see my earlier post for my disdain for that classification] denied 2nd rights. Why not 4th? Hell,the guy stole a car 25 years ago-just kick in his door.We don't need a warrant-he's a felon.

 

[Ned Kelly]

Isolationism, such a successful history.........

It kept our federal government out of debt.

 

[Rockwell1]

I think the Unabomber would rent you his little shack.

Actually the unabomber's shack is on display at the Smithsonian.

I think you might want to go back an read some history Ruggles (you are a spammer BTW is there a reason you can't put your responses in one post?) The Founders didn't care too much for government either. That's why they went out of their way to put some very strict limits on it. Perhaps they're unabombers too?

Thomas Jefferson once said " I'd rather live with the dangers attending too much freedom than too little" This country went wrong when we started taking responsiblity out of the hands of the people and giving it to the government.

Gun control laws of anytype only serve to disarm law-abiding Citizens.

I believe there should be no restrictions on ARMS (point or limited area effect individually carried weapons).

 

[Ruggles]

"Thats like saying adding a bedroom to your house is the same as going in the basement and reworking and fine-tuning the foundation with some tools and new material to ensure the new bedroom has a solid foundation under it."

Fixed it for you.

"The reason you are getting heat here is not because you support background checks-that seems to run about 50-50-but because if you read your posts you seem to think treating the Constitution like silly putty is OK-"well that worked in the past,but lets try this new version".

I do indeed believe that society changes over time changes in laws and regulation must reflection those changes. I think history has proven that point time and time again.

"This all started with "felons"[see my earlier post for my disdain for that classification] denied 2nd rights. Why not 4th? Hell,the guy stole a car 25 years ago-just kick in his door.We don't need a warrant-he's a felon."

This is a dead end point, felons will not be given the legal rights to own firearms anytime in my lifetime. The other issues under debate here might very well be voted upon by the government but not gun rights for felons.

 

[colorado_handgunner]

I personally find the background checks and felon/declared mentally incompetent measure quite acceptable, myself. Those of us that are sane, non-felons really won't have any problems with NICS, I haven't in the last 5 purchases I have made in the past 7 months.

 

[Ruggles]

"I believe there should be no restrictions on ARMS (point or limited area effect individually carried weapons)."

You drew a line my friend you drew a line and violated someone's rights in their mind.

As for history I think we all know the debates that raged amongst different factions in the founding groups of our government. In fact the BOR (and thus the 2nd A) is only there because of this division and the debate that occurred.

"Gun control laws of anytype only serve to disarm law-abiding Citizens.'

That is a old comment that can and will be picked apart by any anti with half a lick of common sense. Are you really saying that gun laws do not prevent any crime or disarm any criminals? Really?

 

[Ruggles]

"I personally find the background checks and felon/declared mentally incompetent measure quite acceptable, myself. Those of us that are sane, non-felons really won't have any problems with NICS, I haven't in the last 5 purchases I have made in the past 7 months."

Too true. I purchased a Walther PPS yesterday. From start to finish the entire transaction took less than 20 mins. Hardly a infringement upon my 2ndA rights.

 

[Ruggles]

"Isolationism, such a successful history.........
It kept our federal government out of debt."

When in the first part of the last century? Totally different world, much much more interconnected now than then. Isolationism either politically or economically are impossible now.

 

[Rockwell1]

Are you really saying that gun laws do not prevent any crime or disarm any criminals? Really?

I've never had any problem purchasing the firearm of my choice from a private sale without a background check.

I have a SIL who is an ex-con I doubt he was out of prison a day before he had a gun. His PO knows he has a piece and he's still out.

The only criminal who is stopped by a gun control law doesn't want a gun

 

[Ruggles]

"I've never had any problem purchasing the firearm of my choice from a private sale without a background check.

I have a SIL who is an ex-con I doubt he was out of prison a day before he had a gun. His PO knows he has a piece and he's still out.

The only criminal who is stopped by a gun control law doesn't want a gun"

So there is nobody body in jail as I type in this who is only there because they were a convicted felon and were caught with a gun which was illegal for them to have? Really? Too bad because if there were any that would sure be a good way to get folks who have a criminal past and a gun off the street to help protect society.

And yes gun laws do have a success rate( again greatly debatable how much) in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Just as laws regarding and regulating full auto weapons keep them out of the hands of criminals.

 

[Rockwell1]

So there is nobody body in jail as I type in this who is only there because they were a convicted felon and were caught with a gun which was illegal for them to have? Really?

Can you cite a single instance?

As a generall rule the only reason they tack on gun charges is to ad to the time the bad guy's looking at when they start to plea bargin.

And yes gun laws do have a success rate( again greatly debatable how much) in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals

Cite

 

[danprkr]

Sadly, probably there is no one in jail who is only there because they were a convicted felon and were caught with a gun. The feds who have to enforce that law have a VERY bad record on that sort of thing. I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I do know that is one set of laws that is NOT enforced with anything even remotely approaching a useful manner.

My observation is this. It seems that a great many of my supposed allies in this forum have lost sight of the reason for the 2nd Amendment - to keep in check tyranny whether from abroad or internal.

I can't remember the exact Thomas Jefferson quote about the blood of patriots, but I bet he wasn't going to submit to a background check before he used his to nourish the Tree of Liberty.