I have this to say about gun control..

[RetiredUSNChief]

I wasn't going to post any more, but since things seem to have calmed a wee bit the last few posts, I'll do so.

Let's take this one, very important, assertion here:

"This is the issue I have several members here think the 2A has no compromises and should be either for or against it.


Now let's look at what a compromise is: "an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions."

There can be no compromise with the Second Amendment because the gun control faction HAS NO CONCESSIONS TO MAKE ON THE SUBJECT.

This is an EXTREMELY important thing to understand. Making concessions with the very right we have in the first place is NOT a "concession".

Put another way, the mugger that robs you of your money is wrong. If, somehow, you were to argue him out of this and he only took HALF of your money, it's most definitely NOT a compromise and is still 100% wrong. Why? Because it's ALL your money! He can't give a concession with your own money.


Imposing a ban on firearms, whatever the ban may be and however limited it may or may not be, is NOT the result of a compromise. The gun control faction has NOT made any concessions of their own. Indeed, they cannot. Thus a "partial AWB" cannot be considered a "compromise" since they cannot make a concession with our own right just because they cannot get a "total AWB".

Imposing more and more restrictions, above and beyond the 20,000-plus laws and regulations already in existence in this country, is NOT a compromise. It's simply adding more and more restrictions on top of those that already exist.

The stated long term goal of the gun control crowd is total bad of ALL firearms by citizens. That's out there and anybody with a computer can see it for themselves.


In the last few decades, gun owners have started standing up against these ever increasing restrictions and have effectively drawn a line in the sand and said "we're not backing down any more". And rightfully so because not doing so simply results in the continued erosion of our RKBA until one day the ultimate goal of the gun control faction will be realized.


Oh, and by the way...the Second Amendment wasn't written for "hunting" or "self-defense" and people who chose to interpret it thus are pretty ignorant on history. So trying to fit the whole of the RKBA under these is wrong.



"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance."

- John Philpot Curran (1790)

 

[silicosys4]

No middle ground needs to be reached. What you need to do is realize that your fear of "assault weapons" in civilian hands is completely groundless and amounts to nothing more than the desire to control people.
As has been pointed out multiple times, statistically they are among the least likely weapons to be used in a homicide.
Fact: semiautomatic modern sporting rifle ownership has risen dramatically since the AWB expired.
Fact: homicides committed with rifles are lower now than they were any time during the AWB, and continue to decline even as there are more scary black rifles out there than there ever have been by a huge amount.

I'm not even going to address your elitist nonsense about hunting with a semiautomatic rifle. I frankly don't need your approval to enjoy my AR15 legally as I see fit, whether that be prairie dog elimination, predator hunting, or shooting steel.
A light barreled 16" AR15 carbine is a much more effective home defense weapon than a pistol for many people, particularly those who are not highly practiced with using a pistol...which is just about everybody, with much greater capacity.


Here's something for you to ponder, as you stated that Australia's ban and subsequent confiscation "worked".

"Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.

Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy. Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them"

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

 

[Davek1977]

I agree wholeheartedly with post 76#. I refuse to give up ANY of my rights for a promise they won't go after other aspects of my rights. Its not a compromise to allow me to keep my Model 70 Winchester, but force me to give up my AK, when both were legally purchased. Its not compromise to agree to a ten round mag limit, in exchange for getting to keep my AK or AR. In order to compromise, we must get something we don't already have, not trade off certain aspects of our gun rights in hopes it will appease the gun grabbers into leaving other aspects alone. THAT is NOT compromise.

 

[Odd Job]

The seizure rate for registered firearms in Australia was 100%. I personally had to surrender seven guns.
The official estimated compliance rate in one non registration state was 28%.
Registration is a required step before confiscation.

What happened to the 72% of guns not confiscated in that one state?
Whether the guns were registered or not is moot, they became illegal to possess. I have to ask what positive value they have for those owners now. What potential use do they have for those firearms?
Therein lies the rub for UK and Australia: men who would apply those tools for the greater good are in the minority. Whether there are guns or not, the real issue is a declining sense of individual responsibility and an ever-growing apathy rooted in the notion that the state must provide security, a livelihood, benefits etc.

Guns and self defense are a casualty of this apathy.

I laughed when I saw a news article about a UK man who wants his guns back (in the wake of the Paris attacks). Of course there were the usual comments of "he shouldn't have given them up and he gets what he deserves" which you could apply to the whole UK populace.
But the real problem is this: it is not necessarily a good thing to hand back guns en masse in circumstances where the people have had no (or only a tenuous) subscription to the notion of individual responsibility.
Providing a tool which can be used for self defense does not also suddenly imbue the owner with good morals and good judgement in the use thereof.
I really don't know how that can be solved, unless there is some kind of apocalyptic event where the slate gets wiped clean and we start again from first principles.

 

[USAF_Vet]

You quote statistics from polls taken from very jaded perspectives. You can ask 100 people their views on guns and get 110 different answers, so to claim 80% of the people support anything is disingenuous. Did they ask you? They certainly didn't ask me. So its 80% of the poll sample, which may or may not be swayed to a certain predisposition. If you walk into a Catholic Church and ask how many people believe in the Virgin Mary, your sample will be different than if you asked the same question to a group of atheists. All statistics, especially on hot button polarizing topics, must be taken with a massive grain of salt.

There is no real good reason for owning high-capacity, high powered, semi automatic rifles.

Since the AR-15, a modern sporting rifle, has become one of the most popular weapons in the US, this statement is the narrow minded perspective of one individual who has no use for one.

In a home defense situation they are nearly useless, they are big and clumsy and the barrel is too long, a handgun is far more effective.

Again, this is the jaded opinion of an anti, which is not rooted in any sort of fact. My AR is much lighter, much handier, much easier to aim and hit, move and carry, and do all the things I may need to do in a home defense situation. My situation is different from the guy who may think the handgun is a better choice. For me, my handgun is what gets me to my rifle.

Second the range of these rifles is up to two miles making collateral damage more likely.

The .22 short has a range of well over a mile and a half. Open unobstructed range and the subsequent collateral damage is another myth. In reality, it happens so infrequently as to be an anomaly.

Third, no self respecting hunter would ever use a 30 round clip with an open sight, not to mention the ammo while plenty large to kill a human at close range it is not optimal to kill larger animals at a distance, at least not cleanly.

This person knows very little about hunting, and ammo choices. The proper bullet design from a .223 caliber weapon is very efficient, even at range. But this is obviously from the perspective of deer hunting. Deer is not the be all end all of hunting. They add the suble caveat of larger animals to shift away from the fact that for smaller game and varmints, the lightweight, long reaching bullet is near perfect.

In fact semi-automatic, small-cal weapons are almost useless for hunting.

Facts show otherwise.

I am fully in support of the 2nd amendment but the continued defense of these weapons is frankly disingenuous.

No, you're not. The repeated use of hunting shows you know bupkis about the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the average citizen was as well armed as the average infantryman, to aid in their ability to act as infantrymen in defense of the Constitution. The continued defense of the semi auto sporting rifle is actually a compromise in itself. We should be fighting to own select fire, unhindered, to be just as well armed as the average infantryman. Defending a semi auto is a concession in and of itself.

The fear gun owners have is that the slippery slope will start, but unless rational compromises are reached the slipper slope will end up being steep cliff and far more weapons will be banned when a fed up public turns on the NRA.

I'd rather fight that battle when it happens, than to concede the war and give up my rights without a fight.

This person says they support the 2nd Amendment, but it quoting from dyed in the wool antigun rhetoric, 100%. Claim support, gain a modicum of support by playing the 'same team' card, then spread misinformation to rot the system from the inside out. This srt of thinking is akin to a virus.

 

[45_auto]

I'm to old, the fights all gone. You youngsters can have it now, good luck.

Good thing people didn't think the way that you do back in 1775. I'm at least as old as you are, quit feeling sorry for yourself. We need more people with the mindset of someone like Samuel Whittemore rather than people whining because they're old. You've enjoyed American freedoms for a long time, try to give some younger people a chance to experience them.

On April 19, 1775, British forces were returning to Boston from the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the opening engagements of the war. On their march, they were continually shot at by colonial militiamen.

Whittemore was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, in 1695. He was 80 years old on April 19, 1775. Whittemore was in his fields when he spotted an approaching British relief brigade under Earl Percy, sent to assist the retreat. Whittemore loaded his musket and ambushed the British Grenadiers of the 47th Regiment of Foot from behind a nearby stone wall, killing one soldier. He then drew his dueling pistols and killed a grenadier and mortally wounded a second. By the time Whittemore had fired his third shot, a British detachment reached his position; Whittemore drew his sword and attacked.[6] He was shot in the face, bayoneted numerous times, and left for dead in a pool of blood. He was found by colonial forces, alive, trying to load his musket to fight again. He was taken to Dr. Cotton Tufts of Medford, who perceived no hope for his survival. However, Whittemore lived another 18 years until dying of natural causes at the age of 96.

 

[45_auto]

Are gun owners "anti's" if they own guns? People who who DO NOT OWN GUNS are anti's.

So please, be a little more opened minded, and stop lumping these two groups together, and then maybe I will try to be a little less pissed off.

You might as well stay pissed off. There is not two separate groups. There are millions of people who DO NOT own guns but who are strong supporters of US freedom and the US Constitution (which includes the second amendment). Many of us have sworn an oath that begins "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".

There are also millions of gun owners who are anti-gun. It's hard to imagine anyone more anti-gun than Dianne Feinstein, yet she owned a pistol until she could get other people to protect her.

Feinstein said on CBS-TV's 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."[

Yet she owned a gun until she became politically strong enough to rate her own ARMED bodyguards. At that time she decided that no one else needed one.

As a supervisor, I had no protection so I got a gun permit and learned to shoot at the Police Academy. When I became mayor, I succeeded in passing a measure banning handguns in San Francisco, and we instituted a 90--day grace period for pistol owners to turn in their handguns without incurring penalties. At that time, I turned in my pistol.

 

[Sam1911]

Looks like this is pretty much becoming the same thread that was closed yesterday.

Best to let the matter of "how much anti-gun are you?" rest for now. Let the contending party read and learn and study for a while before taking up the mantle of punching bag for another round.


While it is a good thing to occasionally go a few rounds "sparring" over all the old familiar territory to keep up our skills and make sure everyone is familiar with the sort of questions they'll be handed out in the "meat world" (and all the best answers to them with which we educate folks and refute specious claims), there is a limit to how much of that is really necessary. We've just come out of a two year slog where we pounded away at these issues almost daily and dragging the same old dead horses out for another round of beatings gets to be counterproductive.

Besides, we pride ourselves on running a polite, civil house here and as folks' frustration mounts upon seeing the same old dumb arguments over and over -- and the same old tendency toward preaching, not listening, from yet another "reasonable restrictions" proponent -- folks sometimes let their frustrations get the better of them. It just isn't worth having to rap members' knuckles for forgetting their manners just so we can practice smacking around these fabulously unoriginal arguing points, ad infinitum.