Help me with this gun control argument

[JImbothefiveth]

but I'm sure you'd agree that once the feds find the membership in a group, rather than actions, to be reason enough to criminalize their Constitutional rights,

You were saying that felons are a diverse group and that not leting them have firearms makes me a bigot, and to substitute any other group for "felon". I said they got in to that group by a criminal action. Another group most similiar to convicted violent felons are al-queda.

So, would it make me a bigot to not want al-queda to have guns?

Casting a blanket view over any group regardless of whether the majority, or especially the minority, of that group reflects that view, is prejudiced. Your post verifies that not all members of this group deserve such treatment. So, yes, it is bigoted to think that way. Your line about 'the majority of them will re-offend' might be true, but to cast the minority in with them is the quintessential example of prejudice.

No it's not. Not only will the majority re-offend, they were all convicted of a crime in a court of law. It's not like the government decided to just throw them in jail, they had to commit a crime, then be charged and convicted by a jury.

In this case to blame those minorities for people they never killed.

A lot of them are there for killing people. Far more than people who don't have smoke detectors. And it's not like they are some oppressed minority who are persecuted out of hatred, they are criminals. They are convicted felons because they commited a crime. And as for the smoke detecter felony, I don't support taking guns away from non-violent felons.

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.

I'm asuming you want to round the felons up and place them in an inescapable camp, isolated form the outside world, sometimes for the rest of their lives. You know, prison. How dare you discriminate against this minority like that.

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

There's no provision that exclude prisoners from the term "people" either. I guess we need to let all prisoners have guns.

However, there is a clause known as "due process". When a person is convicted of a crime he can lose some rights, such as the right to not live in prison or own a gun.

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

I'm not giving up anyone's but violent criminal's freedom, and they gave those up when they decided to attack people. I must be really anti-freedom too, because not only do I support taking away their gun rights, I support keeping them in a giant cage and not leting them vote.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

The criminal will always prey on the defenseless.

Disarming criminals makes less people defenseless. I absolutely support your right to own a gun if you are not a violent felon.

We say that civilians should not have nukes but government should

I say only some governments should have nukes.

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.

Yes we are. When only governments have nukes, the odds of a terrorist or maniac having a nuke drasticly decrease because the people who control them usually have to be somewhat sane to even be allwoed to control them, and less people have them.

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.

If we give up our nukes, there is a terrible risk of being nuked.

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

The less people have them the less likely a maniac is to have one. And, governments are less likely to be maniacal, they didn't get to power by going on a suicidal killing spree.

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?

They have been used twice in their entire history.

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)

Please show me where we nuked Serbia.

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.

No. First you would lose you allies, then you would lose your freedom after America falls.

The bill of rights are fundamental rights not to be denied to citizens.

You forgot about due process.

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

If they were law-abiding citizens they probably wouldn't have been convicted of a violent crime.

And gun control laws that affect everyone, not just criminals, actually do keep guns away from a few violent criminals. The problem is that they disarm many more law abiding people.


And to ruggles, about the constitution: You can change it, however, it should be interpreted like whoever wrote it intended.

 

[Ruggles]

"I'm not stirred up at all. If I were I would PM you. I however like several am certian you are simply trolling and probably shown some false information about yourself to justify your "middle ground" argument. Which to me is an anti-gun argument plain and simple."

So I joined the forum in 2007 and have less total post in that time than you do in the last month and I am a troll and spammer? Uh yeah.

As for providing false information about myself:

http://fnforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=11580&highlight=

My PS90, AR57 and Five seveN. All hated by antis.

Wanna see pictures of my 1911s as well or my new Walther PPS I picked up Monday or how about my Texas CCL which I have had for years?

"The reason why I believe of a certianty you are trolling is that you have refused to back up your claims with sources despite being asked several times. You continually double post and most of your responses are not to argue your point but to attempt to inflame the others in this thread."

Prove to me with facts what I am claiming about current gun laws is not true after all you are the one proposing changes to the those laws so therefore you have the obligation to prove change is needed. I am only proposing we keep the current laws. Common sense statements do not need to be proven.

"I have yet to see any evidence that denying x-cons who have served their parole the right to bear arms has reduced crime unless you have something to back your claim up."

Again you are proposing the change so you prove why it is just to do so. I will stick with common sense again.

"Nor have I ever seen any evidence to suggest keeping guns out of the hands of people with mental disorders has reduced the crime rate either."

Still speechless at this little gem.....

"You need to show some empirecal evidence to back your claim up. Or you are just spamming and trolling."

No, I am advocating we keep the sane gun laws we have now, you are advocating we change them so you are obliged to prove your point with facts that they need to be changed. making a common sense statement like ensuring felons can not legally buy firearms is hardly trolling my friend.

"I am sure in time your argument will eventually cause laws to be passed that will eventually disarm 80 percent of the US population."

Heller vs DC...
Huge explosion of CCW shall issue laws across America....
Open carry in a number of states, with more debating it as we speak......
Sun-setting of the AWB.........
Huge increase of the "Castle Doctrine" across America.......
Gun shows alive and well in the US........
The firearms industry simply having a banner year this year......

Where do you see that these pro gun facts that all occurred recently in the U.S. is leading to a trend where 80% of the U.S. population will be disarmed? Where have I ever supported in in this forums or any other
the disarming of Americans outside of our current sane gun laws that I support? Please provide these examples.

 

[Ruggles]

"The criminal will always prey on the defenseless.
Disarming criminals makes less people defenseless. I absolutely support your right to own a gun if you are not a violent felon.
Quote:
We say that civilians should not have nukes but government should
I say only some governments should have nukes.

Quote:
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.
Yes we are. When only governments have nukes, the odds of a terrorist or maniac having a nuke drasticly decrease because the people who control them usually have to be somewhat sane to even be allwoed to control them, and less people have them.

Quote:
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.
If we give up our nukes, there is a terrible risk of being nuked.

Quote:
"It makes one wonder why the world governments feel they can use these weapons any more responsibly than we can.
The less people have them the less likely a maniac is to have one. And, governments are less likely to be maniacal, they didn't get to power by going on a suicidal killing spree.

Quote:
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?
They have been used twice in their entire history.
Quote:
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)
Please show me where we nuked Serbia.
__________________

Point by point, nicely done.....

 

[Ned Kelly]

http://www.petitiononline.com/exile/petition.html

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2992

Seems I am not alone on the injustice of project Exile.

On Serbia and other military actions I was referring to high tech weapons such as bombers and warships. These weapons used to punish a non-hostile country for reasons associated with promoting EUs landgrabbing agenda.

Project exile looks good in the political arena when you have yes people making positive claims but underneath peer reveiwed academic examination it doesn't hold up to its claims.

http://www.economics.emory.edu/Working_Papers/wp/Olscamp.pdf

Just because the NRA endorses something doesn't mean its a good idea. It was their compromising decisions that now a large number of veterans as far back as Korea and Vietnam can no longer own a gun.

 

[jaybr]

Originally posted by Ned KellyProject exile looks good in the political arena when you have yes people making positive claims but underneath peer reveiwed academic examination it doesn't hold up to its claims.

You asked for evidence, and I gave you evidence. I browsed through the paper you provided the link to, and though that particular analysis showed the claims made by Project Exile where exagerated, it still found that crime rates where reduced. In fact that paper didn't use Richmond's Project Exile in the analysis, but other cities that enacted similar programs based on Exile. The paper also looked at all violent crimes, not just gun related, logic being that even though the program may have reduced gun crime that the criminals switched other weapons such as knives. I know that if a criminal targets me, I'd much rather them be armed with a knife than a gun which makes my defense much easier.

I live in a suburb of Richmond and remember what the city was like in the 90's and saw how much better it got when Project Exile was initiated. Of course there are groups that petitioned against Project Exile, those that believe the laws being enforced (laws that where already on the books) where violations of 2A, not unlike some of the members here, and those that felt the program was racist targeting African Americans. The target of Project Exile was clearly those in Richmond carrying illegal guns, most of them just happened to be African Americans.

You asked for evidence, I gave it to you. Wether Project Exile produced a 3% or 40% drop in violent crimes is debatable, but either way it was effective.

 

[Ned Kelly]

There is plenty of evidence out there but that's why science exists to test the evidence if possible and see if the evidence is sufficient to back up a hypothesis. In this case that Project Exile was a significant success. Or that its offshoots followed its initial claims or results.

In this case the hypothesis cannot be proven any more than a test on a fortune tellers abilities. more than likely a fortune teller can seem to make the correct predictions. Is it psychic ablities or just basic intuition?

 

[jaybr]

Originally posted by Ned Kelly
There is plenty of evidence out there but that's why science exists to test the evidence if possible and see if the evidence is sufficient to back up a hypothesis. In this case that Project Exile was a significant success. Or that its offshoots followed its initial claims or results.

In this case the hypothesis cannot be proven any more than a test on a fortune tellers abilities. more than likely a fortune teller can seem to make the correct predictions. Is it psychic ablities or just basic intuition?

And here lies the problem with any debate I've seen on the subject of gun laws, neither side trust the other sides data as both sides have contradicting data, therefore rarely is anyones mind changed on the topic.

The fact (not hypothesis) is that the crime rate in Richmond dropped significantly in conjunction with Project Exile. Those that support Project Exile claim that the drop in the crime rate was directly effected by the project (which makes perfect sense to me) and those that oppose it claim the crime rate would have dropped anyway.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I find this amusing. The people who want to give nukes to felons say that we shouldn't release them if they are dangerous. Then when there are measures to not release them, they protest that.

 

[Deavis]

I want to make a solid argument against background checks beyond the basic infringement on our rights dealio.

You can't so don't waste your time. Anyone with an understanding of law and principles will destroy any argument you can make. You are trying to argue against multiple fundamentals that make up the background check at once rather than one at a time, which is a recipe for disaster.

 

[Harve Curry]

From the PE link above:
We Condemn "Project Exile"
To All Americans:
The current NRA leadership’s "Project Exile" program
demands "zero tolerance" enforcement of all existing federal gun
laws. But most—if not all—of these laws are unconstitutional
violations of the Second Amendment. American firearm owners and
supporters of the Bill of Rights have invested countless millions of
dollars and man-hours to prevent these same laws from ever being
passed. Clear-thinking Americans continue to work tirelessly to repeal
them.

Enemies of the right of self-defense and the Second Amendment, such as
Handgun Control Inc., Bill Clinton, and Charles Schumer, all strongly support
"Project Exile, because "Project Exile" is an official
endorsement of these onerous gun laws – including the
infamous 1994 "Crime Bill" which outlawed "high
capacity" magazines and banned perfectly Constitutional militia
rifles.

The NRA’s current leadership says that "Project Exile" is
aimed at convicting violent felons. But of course these laws can be—and
will be—used against any citizen who breaks them.
"Project Exile" demands enforcement, with Zero Tolerance and
minimum 5-year prison terms, of current federal laws enforceable
against any American man or woman who, for example:

* attaches a +2 extension to a "post-ban" Glock pistol
magazine

* attaches a flash suppresser, folding stock, or bayonet lug to a
"post ban" militia rifle

* accidentally carries a concealed weapon (with state
"license" or not) into a federally prohibited area, such as
near a school or into a post office

* drives to another state to give a family member (even a son or a
granddaughter) a handgun without going through the instant check
registration scheme

* possesses a gun while subject to a restraining order, regardless of
the absence of violence, and without a trial or any legal adversarial
process having taken place

* commits ANY minor infraction of ANY unconstitutional federal gun law

Should Americans go to prison for the acts described above? "Project
Exile" says YES.

There is no connection between supporting the Bill of Rights and
supporting federal laws that are un-American. Moreover, the
agencies that enforce such laws slaughtered over eighty people in Waco,
shot to death a young boy and his mother at Ruby Ridge, and continually
commit brutal acts against citizens under the guise of "gun
control". The "legal" excuse behind the Waco massacre was
the unproved suspicion of "illegal" machine gun
possession. The "legal" excuse behind the Ruby Ridge killings
was a shotgun that may have been ¼ inch too short. Both are
examples of "zero tolerance".

As for the issue of crime, dissatisfaction regarding the removal of
criminals from our streets should be directed toward state and local
lawmaking bodies—the same entities which often refuse to reduce crime
by respecting our right to bear arms for self-defense.

Governments have murdered tens of millions of their own citizens in the
last century alone—mass murders that were often greatly facilitated by
civilian disarmament aided by firearms registration. Conventional
criminals continue daily to add to their terrible toll of victims.
Therefore we call upon legislators to repeal ALL LAWS which infringe upon
the right of Americans to freely carry arms in defense of self, family,
and country. And we call on the NRA’s leadership to repudiate
"Project Exile", which, by supporting such laws, is a grotesque
betrayal of the eighty-three million American firearm owners who conduct
peaceable lives every day; a betrayal of the Second Amendment; and a
betrayal of the entire Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the freedoms
Americans hold dear.

This statement is endorsed by the following:

Anti-"Exile",
Pro-Second Amendment Coalition Organizers

Brian Puckett, President, Citizens Of
America; Co-founder, GunTruths.com

Angel Shamaya, Founder, Exec. Director, KeepAndBearArms.org/.com

Russ Howard, Exec. Director, Citizens Against Corruption; Past
Director, NRA, On Exile

Larry Pratt, Exec. Director, Gun Owners of
America

Anti-"Exile",
Pro-Second Amendment Coalition Members

Aaron Zelman,
Exec. Director, Jews for the Preservation of
Firearms Ownership

Leroy Pyle, President, Paul Revere Network;
Past NRA Director; Founding Exec. Director, Law
Enforcement Alliance of America; NRA Benefactor Member, NRA Law
Enforcement Committee; NRA Firearms Instructor

Steve Silver, President, Lawyers Second Amendment
Society; Co-founder GunTruths.com;
Sec. Amendment Attorney

Albert Ross, Director, Texas State Rifle Association; Treasurer, Dallas Arms
Collectors Association, Inc.; Past NRA Director & 2nd Vice-President

Nancy Herrington, Executive Vice President, Women Against Gun Control,
Georgia State
Director - Women Against Gun Control

Sarah Thompson, M.D., Founder, Executive Director, Utah Gun
Owners Alliance

Kevin Starrett, Executive Director, Oregon Firearms
Federation

Reginald Shinn,
State Chairman, California American Pistol & Rifle Association

Harry Schneider, Chairman, Pennsylvania Sportsmen's Association

Gary S. Marbut, President, Montana Shooting Sports
Association

Larry Farrell,
President, Gun Owners of New Jersey

Tom Chandler,
Chairman, Capital District Shooters
Committee On Political
Education (SCOPE) NY's
Largest Second Amendment Civil Rights
Group

Ed Kelleher,
President, Grass Roots South
Carolina

Paul Valone,
President, Grass
Roots North Carolina

Dudley Brown,
Executive Director, Rocky Mountain Gun
Owners

Bill Duff,
Legislative Chairman, Keystone Firearms Coalition [PA]

Jack Iannantuono,
Spokesman, Lehigh Valley Firearms Coalition representing nearly
20,000 second amendment supporters in eastern PA

John Harris,
Executive Director, Tennessee
Firearms Association, author of "Carrying a Handgun
for Self-Defense in Tennessee"

Barry Bright,
President, Free Kentucky

Jeff Chan,
President, RKBA.org

Larry R. Rankin,
Chairman, California American Pistol & Rifle Association, Santa
Barbara County; Life Member, GOA,
NRA, CRPA, LEAA, On Exile

Arthur "Art" Nichols,
President, N. Orange County NRA Members Council; NRA Life
Member, Benefactor, On Exile

David Gross,
Founding Director, Past Pres., Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights
Alliance; Former Chairman, NRA High-power Committee

Andrew E. Barniskis,
Legislative Chairman, Bucks County Sportsmen's Coalition [Pennsylvania]

John Birch,
President, Concealed Carry, Inc.

Nancyann Rutledge,
President, Citizens' Gun Rights
Alliance, (formerly the Santa Barbara NRA Members
Council, decertified after refusing to support gun control
and anti-gun candidates)

Bernie Oliver,
President, Brass Roots, Inc.
[Arizona]

Bob Glass,
President, Tyranny Response Team

A. Nathan Zeliff,
Founder and President, SaveOurGuns.com

Jerry F. Phillips,
Founder and Director, GunsAndCrime.com

Weldon Clark,
President, Second Amendment News

Melissa & Neal Seaman,
Co-Presidents, Fi9arms.com, On
Exile

H.S. "Gunnie" Reagan (Major, Retired (USAR),
NRA Life Member and Patron Member; Member GOA, SAF, Deer Tribe Gun
Club Founder, SASS, IDPA, USPSA, IPSC, Vietnam Veteran

L. Neil Smith,
Noted author,
pro-liberty and pro-Constitution activist

J. R. Nyquist,
Author, "Origins
of the Fourth World War", Archives

J.J. Johnson,
Editor-in-Chief, SierraTimes.com
[noted internet news magazine]

Arnold Gaunt,
Utah Republican Party State Central Committee member; NRA Endowment
member

Val Finnell, M.D.,
Past President, Virginia Citizens
Defense League

Chris BeHanna,
Past Board Member, Coalition of New Jersey
Sportsmen
Life GOA & NRA



To All Pro-RKBA organization executives and officers: We
welcome your endorsement of this statement. To add your name and/or
that of your organization, please email [email protected]
with your name, title, organization name, web site address, contact
phone numbers, and a brief statement about your concerns regarding
Project Exile. Please also include any data or web site links you
have regarding this dangerous program.
Sincerely,

The Undersigned
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Any so called pro gun supporter who is in favor of Project Exile is a ........ well "whatever" as the kids say nowdays.
No one here supports giving nukes to anyone and to add it to the discussion is asinine.
The 2nd Amendment is about Arms. Like in weapons of war: firearms, edged weapons, artillery.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

What project exile does is enforce existing gun laws. Apparently you are against enforcing existing gun laws.

Gun control only affects law-abiding people, so the people caught and sent to jail would be criminals.

No one here supports giving nukes to anyone

You were saying we should.

You don't get it, existing gun laws are unConstitutional,

Then stop those. The problem is that the people who break these laws are likely criminals. So, put away the criminals. At present, the AWB is gone.

 

[Harve Curry]

For petes sake JImbothefiveth, look at the list of names. It's the who's who of some of the most, respected, dedicated 2nd Amendment advocates we have.
You don't get it, existing gun laws are unConstitutional, they don't pass the litmus test of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[rfurtkamp]

What project exile does is enforce existing gun laws. Apparently you are against enforcing existing gun laws.

The Exile/SafeNeighborhood ads run here weren't that.

They were a "You have the right to live in a safe place - call X if you see [outline of AK-47]" public relations stunt.

No mention of legal possession, but the whole 'nobody needs those' approach of the current administration with a stamp of approval from the powers that be.

 

[CoRoMo]

You were saying that felons are a diverse group and that not leting them have firearms makes me a bigot

If that is your attempt to paraphrase my words, you couldn't have done a worse job.

So, would it make me a bigot to not want al-queda to have guns?

Nope.

No it's not.

You posted the above quote in response to a series of sentences I made, illustrating the definition of prejudice and bigotry. If you don't think I define those words accurately, tell me precisely how a blanket view of any group isn't just that.

 

[phamkl]

My approach to all of this, much to many of your disdain, I'm sure, is pragmatism.

I don't think violent convicted felons should have the right to guns when released because I have a distrust in the penal system's ability to 'correct' bad behavior. I know that the correct way of fixing this problem would be to fix the penal system but there is no way to do that effectively. Budgetary issues being one of the main concerns so keeping people who are unsafe with a gun, inside for longer, isn't practical, and during the sentencing, there's really no telling how a person will react to prison time. If there's a way to fix this, that is more practical than keeping gun sales away from violent criminals, I'd earnestly like to hear it. I know that people who want guns will get guns, but rather than making it easier to get guns for all [including you and me] I think the solution should be to retain instant background checks and pursue illegal gun sales. I mean, they are illegal after all.

This brings up something I always wonder about - just where do guns used in shooting crimes come from? All these policies should really be looking in that direction. Stolen guns though, is a toughie. How can a law prevent theft? We could start advocating gun safes but that one that you keep nearby while you sleep probably isn't going in there.

Anyway, I want to make one point: The only God given right is the right to do anything you please. Driving a car is no more a privilege than riding a bike, a horse, or anything else. As such, driving a car is also a right. Having a gun is a right.

It's when we enter into society that we must give up some personal freedom for consideration of everyone else, including criminals. Considering criminals, I'm in favor of laws that will strike a balance necessary for living in society. This is a dangerous thing to say (especially here) because this balance slope is what the anti's have been riding all the way down to socialism. And this balance issue is what many here are attacking specifically because of this slippery slope.

I'm an idealist inside, so I would love to let everyone own whatever they please, but I think some measure of practicality is necessary to live in a real society. And I honestly believe that, to push for complete deregulation of arms for anyone considered a citizen (and in some cases, otherwise) would be hurt the pro-gun cause more than anything else. "Common sense" laws seem to be the rule of the day - it's up to pro-gun-rights people to keep this common sense away from non-gun-owning anti's.

I think everyone agrees that the person who thinks that a barrel shroud is the "shoulder thing that goes up" should NOT be calling the shots, especially if she's shouldering the barrel shroud to take her shot.

 

[cbrgator]

I think its OK to ban violent felons from owning guns because we don't see them as having civil rights in general. We strip them away. It get's sticky for me however when they get their rights reinstated. They are still probably quite dangerous, but if they have their rights, they have their rights. I don't know...

 

[doublebarrel12]

Well I am astounded by what I read in some of these peoples remarks. If you believe felons should have access to guns, then you must think child molesters should be allowed to be daycare workers because they paid thier dues... Poor decisions carry penalties, felonies are not from driving to fast or littering. It doesn't hurt my feelings for them to lose rights. They probably didn't care about others rights when they commited thier crimes... I don't like the background check but see no other way around it, I have nothing to hide so check away big brother. So yeah, I'd like to see the guys who believe like aboves face when they learn a convicted child molester is working at thier childs school or daycare, coaching thier t-ball team. Bet you sing a different tune then, "he paid his debt to society" crap will not be your first thought I'm sure. History repeats itself!