PDA

View Full Version : Your thoughts on gun control


wilson_wwsc
07-19-2009, 4:05 PM
I'm writing a paper on gun control, and have many ideas.
I'd like to see what strong arguements you guys can think of that argue in support or agaisnt gun control.

Thanks,
Wilson

VW*Mike
07-19-2009, 4:15 PM
In order for ANY gun control measure to work, you have to have one key thing working for you, criminals that will obey the law...................

alex00
07-19-2009, 4:33 PM
You could compare proposed gun control measures to Prohibition or the "war on drugs".

darkiceman56
07-19-2009, 4:34 PM
Gun licensing and registration does not work in when trying to solve gun related laws (Source: John Lott "Gun licensing and Registration leads to increased crime, lost lives")

THT
07-19-2009, 4:36 PM
Gun control only penalizes the law-abiding. Criminals by definition do not follow the law so no matter what you outlaw or ban, they will still acquire it.

darkiceman56
07-19-2009, 4:38 PM
+ Gun free zones does not deter violence. Heres a list of places that were suppose to be "safe" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting

Liberty1
07-19-2009, 4:40 PM
http://a-human-right.com/

ojisan
07-19-2009, 4:42 PM
The rise in violent crimes everywhere the citizens have been disarmed (England, Australia)

ETA: I have been through two armed take-over robberies.
In both cases, the weapons used were stolen, in one case from the Marine Corps.
Even a ban on civilian gun ownership would not have made a difference.
Bad guys will always have guns, good people need to have them too.

andalusi
07-19-2009, 4:46 PM
I'm writing a paper on gun control, and have many ideas.
I'd like to see what strong arguements you guys can think of that argue in support or agaisnt gun control.

Thanks,
Wilson

You might find this thread interesting: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=204312

The first post links to a UCLA Law Review article you should read. The first link below is the abstract and the second the actual article:
http://www.uclalawreview.org/articles/?view=56/5/1-6
http://www.uclalawreview.org/articles/content/56/ext/pdf/5.1-6.pdf

Big Jake
07-19-2009, 4:47 PM
I have a great theory on the merits both for and against gun guntrol. You cannot have a society such as exists in USA where bye the governement allows it's citizens to own guns but does not let them carry guns!

This simply does not work! You either have to have an all or nothing law. Either a government allows all of it's law abiding citizens who choose to carry a gun do so or ban them altogether from everyone except LEO or military.

This is what is generely the case in most European countries that are highly restrictive of citizen firearm ownership!

To a certain extent the second amendment is out of date with the reality of modern life. At the time of the constitution's writing the world was a much different place then it is today.

There was no standing army or police force to defend the new nation from criminals. Instead there were citizen soldiers (Militia) that were called to defend the town/state/country when needed.

The right to keep and bear arms was essential in those times. It can be argued that this is not the case in today's modern world with standing armies and police agencies.

This is not an anti-gun argument. I am very pro-gun or I would not be a part of this forum, however, there is some validity to the other side of the gun argument.

That's my two cents for what it is worth!:beatdeadhorse5:

wilson_wwsc
07-19-2009, 4:51 PM
You might find this thread interesting: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=204312

The first post links to a UCLA Law Review article you should read. The first link below is the abstract and the second the actual article:
http://www.uclalawreview.org/articles/?view=56/5/1-6
http://www.uclalawreview.org/articles/content/56/ext/pdf/5.1-6.pdf

very interesting indeed. Thanks!


and thanks to everyone else, I just need some strong arguements for gun control that I can refute. I already have a bunch, but I am only one mind.

MIKE_the_MILITANT
07-19-2009, 4:54 PM
http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll159/mike_the_militant/1344099.jpg

wilson_wwsc
07-19-2009, 4:55 PM
To a certain extent the second amendment is out of date with the reality of modern life. At the time of the constitution's writing the world was a much different place then it is today.

There was no standing army or police force to defend the new nation from criminals. Instead there were citizen soldiers (Militia) that were called to defend the town/state/country when needed.

The right to keep and bear arms was essential in those times. It can be argued that this is not the case in today's modern world with standing armies and police agencies.

This is not an anti-gun argument. I am very pro-gun or I would not be a part of this forum, however, there is some validity to the other side of the gun argument.

That's my two cents for what it is worth!:beatdeadhorse5:

I see some validity in this, but the constitiution is a living document, and no changes have been made to the Second Amendment. Is this arguement valid?

andalusi
07-19-2009, 4:55 PM
I have a great theory on the merits both for and against gun guntrol. You cannot have a society such as exists in USA where bye the governement allows it's citizens to own guns but does not let them carry guns!

Well, obviously a government can. That's how it is in most of California, after all. I expect wilson_wwsc wants argument why you shouldn't (or conversely, why you should) have such a scenario.

This simply does not work! You either have to have an all or nothing law. Either a government allows all of it's law abiding citizens who choose to carry a gun do so or ban them altogether from everyone except LEO or military.

Again, except for the fact that governments can have such a policy, as evidenced by real life examples such as most of our state. Good luck getting a CCW in Santa Clara County, for instance.

PEBKAC
07-19-2009, 4:56 PM
I'm fond of this for a counter argument in moral argumentation.

A typical strategy to argue for gun control from a moral perspective is to argue that all guns are morally problematic or morally wrong for whatever reason (usually them being designed for only for destruction is a starting point).

If guns are morally problematic or morally wrong, it follows that something should be done to get rid of them, and the moral good is the reduction, not increase, in the number of firearms in circulation.

Here's the fun part: assume the assertion that guns are in fact morally wrong is correct. Hence increased circulation is bad, and against the moral good.

Simply argue that bans on guns in fact increase circulation overall and then, as per the assertions of the people arguing for banning guns, banning guns is in fact morally wrong.

It is not however a solid argument for the proliferation of guns, simply a rebuttal that might throw a curve ball at the enemy they weren't expecting. ;)


Oh, yeah. And remember, if arguing from a moral perspective on the issue of guns, ALL LAWS, whether for or against guns, are neither moral nor immoral unless proven so, hence the second amendment means squat in moral argumentation unless you can argue the second amendment is in fact a moral law. This one can trip you up.

andalusi
07-19-2009, 4:56 PM
very interesting indeed. Thanks!


and thanks to everyone else, I just need some strong arguements for gun control that I can refute. I already have a bunch, but I am only one mind.

You may have already done this, but if you haven't, the Nordyke decision has a fascinating discussion about why the Second Amendment should be interpreted as being an individual right. The justices really delved into the historical context and why it's still valid today.

Big Jake
07-19-2009, 4:59 PM
Good point! The constitution is indeed a living document. The fact that it has not been changed should support the notion of national ccw. If we are to interpret the constitutions original meaning to be applicable today then national right to carry should be law.

The issue really is that of states rights, which is also part of the constitution. This is where it gets complicated!:patriot:

scrat
07-19-2009, 4:59 PM
If your having problems with Gun Control get a smaller gun or use Two hands :kest:

berto
07-19-2009, 5:02 PM
To a certain extent the second amendment is out of date with the reality of modern life. At the time of the constitution's writing the world was a much different place then it is today.

There was no standing army or police force to defend the new nation from criminals. Instead there were citizen soldiers (Militia) that were called to defend the town/state/country when needed.

The right to keep and bear arms was essential in those times. It can be argued that this is not the case in today's modern world with standing armies and police agencies

The Second Amendment is about more than defending oneself, the village, or the state/nation from criminals or invaders. It's ultimately about giving the citizenry the means to defend themselves against their own government. The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment after staking their lives and fortunes on exactly that. That the common man might one day need take up arms against his own government was an idea still very fresh in their minds and their shared experience.

Big Jake
07-19-2009, 5:02 PM
Funny, but besides the point!:jump:

wilson_wwsc
07-19-2009, 5:05 PM
If your having problems with Gun Control get a smaller gun or use Two hands :kest:

my professor likes play on words. I should put this in there somehow even though it would not be "academic."

Big Jake
07-19-2009, 5:07 PM
I like Clint Eastwoods take on gun control. He says "I am all for gun control. If there is a gun around I want to be in control of it":17:

FeuerFrei
07-19-2009, 5:10 PM
Strong argument number 1; see second amendment of U.S. Constitution.
Strong argument number 2; the constitution is not a living document subject to change on a whim. It is difficult to change because people change their minds often for the wrong reason and without much thought. Changing it forces careful thought and reason.
The Constitution affirms our rights and dose not grant them to us.
It limits government's "rights" to hinder a tyrannical gov't attitude.

Big Jake
07-19-2009, 5:14 PM
It cannot change on a whim! The US supreme court must have at least five judges to vote the same way in order for it to be interpreted one way or the other.

That is what checks and balances is all about!:boxing_smiley:

kermit315
07-19-2009, 5:15 PM
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c361/fordboy0720/guncontrol.jpg

wilson_wwsc
07-19-2009, 5:29 PM
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c361/fordboy0720/guncontrol.jpg

you, among others have inspired me to do this for my paper:
Title:
Gun Control Means Using Both Hands

Last line of my paper (discussion and debate refers to talking about 2A):
When discussion and debate turn into death and destruction, what will you do? Both hands on the Blackberry, or both hands on the Beretta?

edit: i should also mention that death and destruction refer to an anecdote about a break-in in progress

kermit315
07-19-2009, 5:35 PM
nice. I took that picture after the first time I shot that pistol, that was the first target. 30 rounds at 10 yards I think it was. Anyway, ran it through the motivator and turned it into the desktop on my computer for a while.

510dat
07-19-2009, 5:48 PM
My rights to safety, liberty and self-determination predate and supersede the powers and privileges that our Constitution grants to our government. Remember, the Constitution is (primarily) two things: a framework structure for our government, and (in the form of the amendments) a list of limitations of the powers of government.

Our government may have the power to restrict our right to self protection through firearms, but it does not have the right to do so, and that is a distinction that many people do not understand.

The fundamental purpose of any government is to provide a stable environment in which people can live their lives without fear of violent turmoil, and to provide a system of civil and criminal courts for when individuals threaten that stability.

Unfortunately, our government has chosen to restrict the rights of the many, in order to (theoretically) limit the violations that a few criminals who perform violent acts.

Unfortunately, as others have pointed out here, criminals by nature do not respect or live within the law. Therefore, the only people affected by the law are those who respect and obey the law, and don't cause problems for others.

Therefore, gun control, as it is enacted here in the US, is both a useless effort and a violation of fundamental rights.

The function of gun control (in contrast to the intent and purpose of gun control) is to occasionally make the lives of criminals incrementally more painful, and to occasionally make the lives of law-abiding citizens a living nightmare (see: Blackwater Ops on this board for an example).

currahee1
07-19-2009, 5:56 PM
A friend sent me this in a e mail a few months ago:I do not know who wrote it so I can not give them credit for it.


Why the gun IS civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, thatís it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way
to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single gay
guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

Note: Consider these words carefully: "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force."

Consider also, if you will, the number of public officials, poiliticians, and social do-gooders who want each and every average citizen disarmed, and for only police and the military to carry and have access to arms.

Now, put 1+1 together. There is ONLY one reason one human wants another human to be defenseless, and that is in order to be able to FORCE them to perform actions against their will.

MiguelS
07-19-2009, 6:52 PM
So would everyone be okay with anyone carrying a concealed weapon as long as they go through some training and follow a process? If that is the case, that sounds very reasonable.

currahee1
07-19-2009, 7:01 PM
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

http://www.joebrower.com/RKBA/RKBA_FILES/GOV_DOCS/1982_Congress_RKBA_report.pdf

If you look at the the members of the judiciary committee you will see vice presidents Biden's name.

badreligion
07-19-2009, 7:04 PM
Miguel, the simple answer is no. Who decides what training and process is acceptable? All you have to look at the CCW here in Comifornia. Some counties are shall issue and some are no issue.

A simpler system is to say people shall be free to exercise their rights in any way they see fit to the extent that they do not violate the rights of another person.

bboyin4food
07-19-2009, 7:06 PM
A friend sent me this in a e mail a few months ago:I do not know who wrote it so I can not give them credit for it.


Why the gun IS civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, thatís it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way
to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single gay
guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

Note: Consider these words carefully: "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force."

Consider also, if you will, the number of public officials, poiliticians, and social do-gooders who want each and every average citizen disarmed, and for only police and the military to carry and have access to arms.

Now, put 1+1 together. There is ONLY one reason one human wants another human to be defenseless, and that is in order to be able to FORCE them to perform actions against their will.

Awesome little article, thanks for posting it. did a little research and found it was written by a guy named Marko Kloos.

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

HondaMasterTech
07-19-2009, 7:07 PM
Gun control = using both hands.

cousinkix1953
07-19-2009, 7:07 PM
+ Gun free zones does not deter violence. Heres a list of places that were suppose to be "safe" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shooting
San Francisco was a "handgun free" zone for most of 2006-2008. Criminals did not care about a city ordinance which outlawed pistols and revolvers. It was business as usual with the gang bangers...

stuckinhippytown
07-19-2009, 7:11 PM
Gun control is keeping the booger finger off the boom switch

liketoshoot
07-19-2009, 7:30 PM
I am not expecting a fire in my house, but I have a fire extinguisher. The same goes for a gun, I am not expecting trouble, but if it happens I am ready.
The police can get there fast but can not get there before they are called, and then it might be to late.

Desert_Rat
07-19-2009, 7:32 PM
We should change the mantra from gun control to crime control

wilson_wwsc
07-19-2009, 7:35 PM
Gun control is keeping the booger finger off the boom switch

might i suggest trigger instead of switch- redundant, but sounds rhymey.
Gun control is keeping the booger finger off the boom trigger.

Thanks for all the input everyone, I will try to put as much of it in my paper as I can in 5-7 pages.

MiguelS
07-19-2009, 7:36 PM
Miguel, the simple answer is no. Who decides what training and process is acceptable? All you have to look at the CCW here in Comifornia. Some counties are shall issue and some are no issue.

A simpler system is to say people shall be free to exercise their rights in any way they see fit to the extent that they do not violate the rights of another person.

I guess I just don't feel comfortable with people that have not had any education or training on CCW. I think it takes a different mentality when carrying a weapon on the open streets. If I see someone with a concealed weapon, I assume they are LE, or have had some training, or was educated on carrying. I thought that was the case now, you apply with "good cause" and recieve some training. Perhaps I hear that because I read people take a CCW training.

liketoshoot
07-19-2009, 7:40 PM
here's a good youtube video from England: http://freedomedium.com/2009/04/what-the-citizens-of-a-disarmed-country-can-teach-america/

FullMetalJacket
07-19-2009, 7:47 PM
"Gun control isn't about guns. It's about control."

Throughout history, the men with freedom had the right to bear arms. Having the right to bear arms means having the capability to fight, to resist. Our Founders knew this well and so were compelled to enumerate the right to bear arms in the Constitution as an extra assurance of individual liberty in the face of a powerful (albeit ostensibly limited) central government they were creating.

The wisdom of enumerating certain rights in the Constitution has been thoroughly vindicated. Although the federal government has stepped over its lawful boundaries virtually everywhere, it cannot take away our means to resist. Even a judicial activist has a hard time interpreting away words like "the right of the people."

I'm astonished that people can make the claim that they support the Constitution--a document whose protections for accused persons were formulated with the principle "better 100 guilty men go free than 1 innocent be imprisoned"--by adopting the position of the gun banners: better that 100 legitimate gunowners be stripped of their rights than 1 criminal misuse his.

HowardW56
07-19-2009, 7:56 PM
Both hands, feet spread shoulder width, proper sight alignment, squeeze the trigger...

If you hit the center of the target, you have proper gun control!

Ishoot
07-19-2009, 8:13 PM
I have a great theory on the merits both for and against gun guntrol. You cannot have a society such as exists in USA where bye the governement allows it's citizens to own guns but does not let them carry guns!

This simply does not work! You either have to have an all or nothing law. Either a government allows all of it's law abiding citizens who choose to carry a gun do so or ban them altogether from everyone except LEO or military.

This is what is generely the case in most European countries that are highly restrictive of citizen firearm ownership!

To a certain extent the second amendment is out of date with the reality of modern life. At the time of the constitution's writing the world was a much different place then it is today.

There was no standing army or police force to defend the new nation from criminals. Instead there were citizen soldiers (Militia) that were called to defend the town/state/country when needed.

The right to keep and bear arms was essential in those times. It can be argued that this is not the case in today's modern world with standing armies and police agencies.

This is not an anti-gun argument. I am very pro-gun or I would not be a part of this forum, however, there is some validity to the other side of the gun argument.

That's my two cents for what it is worth!:beatdeadhorse5:

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." ó Heinrich Himmler
Valid sure..as long as the people in power never abuse it...:rolleyes:

phamkl
07-19-2009, 8:54 PM
here's a good youtube video from England: http://freedomedium.com/2009/04/what-the-citizens-of-a-disarmed-country-can-teach-america/

Quoted for emphasis.

wilson_wwsc
07-19-2009, 8:58 PM
Quoted for emphasis.

emphasis noted. incorporating as a source. :)

erblo
07-19-2009, 9:08 PM
I guess I just don't feel comfortable with people that have not had any education or training on CCW. I think it takes a different mentality when carrying a weapon on the open streets. If I see someone with a concealed weapon, I assume they are LE, or have had some training, or was educated on carrying. I thought that was the case now, you apply with "good cause" and recieve some training. Perhaps I hear that because I read people take a CCW training.

I'm with you on this. I'd like to know that a CCW'er: a) knows how to operate a gun safely, and b) knows the relevant laws when CCW'ing.

nick
07-19-2009, 9:24 PM
I'm with you on this. I'd like to know that a CCW'er: a) knows how to operate a gun safely, and b) knows the relevant laws when CCW'ing.

I'd like the person I'm discussing something with to:

a) Agree with me;

b) Not contradict me.

You have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. You also have a right to keep and bear arms. And the right to freedom of speech and religion. You do not have, nor can anyone or anything guarantee it, the right to safety. Some safety can be provided for you, and your other rights give you the means to provide it for yourself (that is, when they aren't infringed upon, like you're suggesting to do). However, hasn't History taught you (and a lot of other people) anything on how liberties and eventually lives are sacrificed for "safety"?

Now, my untrained grandmother has as much right to protect herself as a Magpul Dynamics junkie. That's the nature of a right - you get it just because you exist, as opposed to a privilege, which you get for doing something to deserve it, be it paying for it, training for it, kissing the right butt, etc. The last I checked, the right to keep and bear arms was just that - a right. If it becomes subject to training, it becomes a privilege. You know, something that's granted to you, and can be revoked on a whim.

berto
07-19-2009, 9:34 PM
I guess I just don't feel comfortable with people that have not had any education or training on CCW. I think it takes a different mentality when carrying a weapon on the open streets. If I see someone with a concealed weapon, I assume they are LE, or have had some training, or was educated on carrying. I thought that was the case now, you apply with "good cause" and recieve some training. Perhaps I hear that because I read people take a CCW training.

Who decides the location, time, amount, quality, and cost of this training?

It behooves the CCW holder to be familiar with applicable law and tactics.

tortoisethunder
07-19-2009, 9:40 PM
The old saying is..."If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns!" soooo simple but so true.

Gun control only limits law abiding citizens and the choices. The police and military are NOT obligated to protect YOU...right now. Meaning, if you have a situation and call 911, they will get there, but maybe to late? If you or a family member is harmed the police did all they could do to get there in time...well you are a victim.

The 2nd Amendment was meant for each individual to own weapons. We need these weapons to keep criminals and our own government checked. If you really look at gun control from a distance, it is really making the criminal and our own government more powerful over the average person.

I feel the changing and more modern times, even makes the 2nd amendment MORE important than times long ago. People whom make this reference that now we don't need the 2nd amendment due to the fact we have the police to call, makes us more relying on our government.

I will call the police and respect the police, but I will deal with an intruder IMMEDIATELY. I will protect my family, myself, and property.

Another question...do we really want a government that does not TRUST it's citizens? Why would the government infringe on a person's rights? Are these people in the government ELECTED officials? Since they were elected by us...why wouldn't they trust us?

I myself want LESS government in my life. I want to go about my life with little help from outside government sources. What happened to people taking care of themselves...I guess there are some people that don't?

nick
07-19-2009, 9:50 PM
Another question...do we really want a government that does not TRUST it's citizens? Why would the government infringe on a person's rights? Are these people in the government ELECTED officials? Since they were elected by us...why wouldn't they trust us?

Precisely that's why. "Those people were stupid enough to vote for ME??? This only goes to show that they can't be trusted to make any decisions" :)

tortoisethunder
07-19-2009, 10:08 PM
Precisely that's why. "Those people were stupid enough to vote for ME??? This only goes to show that they can't be trusted to make any decisions" :)

I am tired of elected officials and their "agendas". Thomas Jefferson was afraid of this! This is one of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was written, I am sick and tired of arguing with non gun owners the fact that THIS GOVERNMENT was made for the people, by the people...but if at ANY time THIS government fails we have the right to change it!

I always say to the non gun owners, hey I am ok with you not owning a gun, why would you vote to take my gun away? Just like you have the right NOT to own...I have the right TO own!

nick
07-19-2009, 10:18 PM
No argument here.

MiguelS
07-20-2009, 8:15 AM
Now, my untrained grandmother has as much right to protect herself as a Magpul Dynamics junkie. That's the nature of a right - you get it just because you exist, as opposed to a privilege, which you get for doing something to deserve it, be it paying for it, training for it, kissing the right butt, etc. The last I checked, the right to keep and bear arms was just that - a right. If it becomes subject to training, it becomes a privilege. You know, something that's granted to you, and can be revoked on a whim.

Well imagine your untrained grandmother pulling out her pistol, whether she was in danger or not, and then some other untrained father with his family shooting her because he felt threatened when he saw the gun and kills your grandmother. I can hear you say, well the father is untrained, why is he carrying. It is his right to carry, but just made a mistake.

I am also not saying that because someone is trained they will not make mistakes.

I was never in the service, but I assume they just give a gun to the new enlisted person and send them off to war. I assume there is some training to that.

Who will create the program for such courses? Why can't the NRA(affliates) and respected members of the firearm world do this. Create an independent council. Issues don't change overnight...I rather see slow change then no change. I see it as a compromise, for this point and time.

So, I understand it is a right and completely understand the reasoning from the reading on here. But as of today, it is construed as a privledge. I just have concerns about law-abiding citizens carrying without proper knowledge. Especially since starting to go to the range and I see bullet holes on the table and just above me in the lane. I can't imagine one of them carrying in public.

Good topic...learning quite a bit.

yellowfin
07-20-2009, 8:37 AM
THIS GOVERNMENT was made for the people, by the people...but if at ANY time THIS government fails we have the OBLIGATION to change it!!
Fixed it for you.

The anti gun political complex and the horrid sodomization of our right to keep and bear arms by our government and legal system is something I honestly wish didn't exist. Of course wishing doesn't make it so, and unfortunately it's a must for me wanting to continue to live in the country I know to take up the fight against it. I really wish I didn't have to. I was for most of my life an easy going casual gun owner and sportsman perfectly content to enjoy what I have, shoot and and hunt when I wanted without the slightest bit of fear that someone was trying to take it away. I didn't have the budget problem of having to scrape and plan and hoard because as far as I knew I didn't have to buy up everything I'd ever want because presumably it would always be there. I didn't have the stress that it might be gone later and I wouldn't have my whole life to enjoy it as I please and share it with my wife and friends and future family. I didn't have the anger at knowing that while I worked to pay bills and taxes and living expenses and had a little left over at the end to buy an occasional new gun or accessory that someone else was paying their bills and expenses from doing nothing other than stealing it from me. I didn't have the frustration that while life was going on for the rest of the world pretty much as it always has, that the news and the trouble of my 2nd Amendment rights under siege was of completely no concern to them; that I would appear a lunatic for loudly sounding alarms for a problem that they maybe didn't agree to be a problem at all--or worse that it was the other way around-- let alone have willingness to stand up against.

Neither you nor I started this war. I just found it there in my path and it wouldn't step out of the way. It's irritating and maddening to me to have to fight it, absurd to me that it's even there, but it just is. But I can't just ignore it, can't quit, can't forget about it, can't leave it alone...can only fight, pray, speak up, teach, beg, plead, complain, warn, spend, invest, write, kick and scream, run, drive, display, and whatever else I possibly can do to get it to hurry the hell up and be won so I can get back to the rest of life knowing that there's one less thing wrong in the world I live in.

God only knows when that will be.

badreligion
07-20-2009, 5:15 PM
When the government desides on how someone can exercise thier rights you have set up a system where the govenment can decide what rights you have. We live in such a system right now. We the People have allowed the government to forget the reason we created this republic and for better or worse We the People are obligated to change it.

Use your Trained-Untrained agruement on the First Amendment and see if it holds water.

I am training my 4 year old son to ride a bike right now. I fell off mine yesterday.

I want to carry a Gun for Happiness to Perserve Life and Protect Liberty.

Glock22Fan
07-20-2009, 5:19 PM
Doesn't this come up every week or three?

CitaDeL
07-20-2009, 7:47 PM
Gun control has more to do with establishing or maintaining inequality than it has to do with guns.

SuperSet
07-20-2009, 8:17 PM
To the OP, you originally asked for both sides of the argument so have you mentally rehearsed arguments for gun control such as 'should the mentally ill be allowed to own?' and the closely related, 'does the same hold true for felons?'. IMO, you're going to have a hell of a time convincing a pragmatic person that there shouldn't be some limits.

gravedigger
07-20-2009, 8:24 PM
I see some validity in this, but the constitiution is a living document, and no changes have been made to the Second Amendment. Is this arguement valid?

The United States Constitution is NOT a "living document." Sheesh!

ConcernedCitizen
07-20-2009, 8:28 PM
Despite conflicting evidence (mentioned elsewhere in this thread) many "intellectuals" believe the 2nd amendment only appiles to militias. Since they consider militias to be just another part of the government, they steadfastly deny the individual right to keep and bear arms. This is easily refuted if a person is open-minded. IMO, your paper would be incomplete without discussing this element.

Slightly OT, I think gang-bangers should be given free marksmanship lessons. Then they would stop spraying shots all over the place and hitting innocents and begin to hit their targets. SInce their targets are other gang members, they would slowly solve the gang problem, one wasted life at a time.

gravedigger
07-20-2009, 8:37 PM
So would everyone be okay with anyone carrying a concealed weapon as long as they go through some training and follow a process? If that is the case, that sounds very reasonable.

What "training" have you received and what "license" do you hold in order to exercise any of your OTHER RIGHTS? Do you hold a gu'mint permit to worship? Do you have a laminated pass that prevents you from being subjected to unreasonable search and seizure?

The free exercise of your RIGHT to keep and bear arms does not require a license OR training.

However, I do encourage those who choose to KAB to go GET some training, simply because in the same way that ANY person can attempt to defend his or herself against a physical attack, but the self-defensive acts of those with martial arts training will probably be more effective, defending oneself against an attack by drawing a personal firearm will probably be more effective after you have had some training.

I stop at requiring any sort of gu'mint intervention before a person can exercise a RIGHT, while agreeing that there are consequences for the improper exercise of that right. You can speak, but you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. You don't need a license to speak, but there are serious consequences if you cause a panic or incite a riot with the words you utter.

gravedigger
07-20-2009, 8:43 PM
If I see someone with a concealed weapon, I assume they are LE, or have had some training, or was educated on carrying.

If you see someone with a concealed weapon, IT ISN'T CONCEALED.

locosway
07-20-2009, 8:46 PM
Sure, the constitution is old, and the world has changed a lot. However, there is one thing that has NEVER changed. The constitution was written to control the government, not the people. The 2A isn't about hunting, it's about being able to keep the government in check. If our government, or any other tried to run a muck in this country they would be met with strong resistance. Essentially the entire country IS the militia, and DOES have the right and means to defend themselves from tyranny or criminals.

Wars aren't fair, if they can disarm you with laws then so be it, they've already begun to win without firing a single shot.

gravedigger
07-20-2009, 8:47 PM
I'm with you on this. I'd like to know that a CCW'er: a) knows how to operate a gun safely, and b) knows the relevant laws when CCW'ing.

a) Is it your assumption that criminals "know how to operate a gun safely?" Ordinary citizens need some permit and special training, but criminals are just naturally good with guns?

b)The relevant laws are simple. If you feel that your life is in imminent danger, SHOOT! What other laws concern you?

M. Sage
07-20-2009, 8:58 PM
A friend sent me this in a e mail a few months ago:I do not know who wrote it so I can not give them credit for it.


Why the gun IS civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or compelling me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, thatís it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social
interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way
to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal
footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year-old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year-old gangbanger, and a single gay
guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats.

The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

Note: Consider these words carefully: "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force."

Consider also, if you will, the number of public officials, poiliticians, and social do-gooders who want each and every average citizen disarmed, and for only police and the military to carry and have access to arms.

Now, put 1+1 together. There is ONLY one reason one human wants another human to be defenseless, and that is in order to be able to FORCE them to perform actions against their will.

Awesome little article, thanks for posting it. did a little research and found it was written by a guy named Marko Kloos.

http://munchkinwrangler.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-gun-is-civilization.html

Just a note, his current blog is here (http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/). Usually worth a read; I have it bookmarked. That particular essay has been "borrowed" by different sources.

Another good one from him: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/10/29/give-them-nothing/

And: http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/i-am-bullet/

cr250chevy
07-20-2009, 9:04 PM
says it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=related

KylaGWolf
07-20-2009, 9:05 PM
curahee1 I like it.

gravedigger
07-20-2009, 9:17 PM
Well imagine your untrained grandmother pulling out her pistol, whether she was in danger or not, and then some other untrained father with his family shooting her because he felt threatened when he saw the gun and kills your grandmother. I can hear you say, well the father is untrained, why is he carrying. It is his right to carry, but just made a mistake.

Miguel, Lets say you are walking down a street. Ahead of you are several people: A woman pushing a baby stroller, a man selling newspapers, a guy painting a gutter, a teenager eating a corn dog and a dirty tattooed man with chains hanging from his leather jacket, dreadlocks, ratty boots with metal castings, dirty torn jeans, and an angry look on his face, cussing like a Russian sailor on leave and punching the newspaper rack as he stomps by it. Which one of these people, if any, would cause your brain to initiate your natural "defense mode" and force you to ignore the others and keep your eye on this ONE person? Hmmmmm??

Your statement IGNORES a simple truth about the human brain's ability to ascertain a threat. Perhaps it is the result of years of "political correctness" indoctrination. The average person, even the "untrained father" would not look at the "untrained grandmother" lifting a handgun out of her purse and mentally conclude that she is there to commit a crime. LOW LIFE can be identified even when it is among a crowd of people. It is identified by its appearance, its body language, its mannerisms and more. Surely you agree.

The simple sight of a GUN does not alarm most people (except for the ultra-Left who believe that a gun has a mind of its own and can force its owner to go on a shooting spree against the will of the gun's owner) or cause them to feel that their life is in imminent danger, UNLESS that gun is pointed directly at them, and the person holding it looks like he wouldn't mind going BACK to jail, OR the gun holder is OBVIOUSLY committing an armed robbery or other unmistakable crime. "This is a stick up!"

I am also not saying that because someone is trained they will not make mistakes.

Interesting, how you accept that a trained person may make a mistake, but you reject the notion that an UNtrained person may NOT.

I was never in the service, but I assume they [don't] just give a gun to the new enlisted person and send them off to war. I assume there is some training to that.

War and a civilized society are two completely different things. A soldier in uniform, in an area where there are KNOWN enemies who have on their mind to kill that soldier who can be identified BY his uniform is completely different that a criminal in society who has no particular target. A bad guy doesn't usually think, "I'm gonna kill every person who wears a red shirt!"

Who will create the program for such courses? Why can't the NRA (affiliates) and respected members of the firearm world do this. Create an independent council. Issues don't change overnight...I rather see slow change then no change. I see it as a compromise, for this point and time.

Those programs already exist. You are suggesting that they be mandatory.

So, I understand it is a right and completely understand the reasoning from the reading on here. But as of today, it is construed as a privilege. I just have concerns about law-abiding citizens carrying without proper knowledge.

Are you concerned about any of the other RIGHTS they exercise "Without proper knowledge?"

Especially since starting to go to the range and I see bullet holes on the table and just above me in the lane. I can't imagine one of them carrying in public.

Yeah, you're right. They should all get the necessary training on how to properly handle a gun BEFORE they are allowed to carry one on the streets, concealed and loaded. Rigid, structured training ... just like the gang bangers get before THEY carry a gun on the streets, concealed and loaded.

KylaGWolf
07-20-2009, 9:45 PM
Well imagine your untrained grandmother pulling out her pistol, whether she was in danger or not, and then some other untrained father with his family shooting her because he felt threatened when he saw the gun and kills your grandmother. I can hear you say, well the father is untrained, why is he carrying. It is his right to carry, but just made a mistake.

First off my grandmother was a wife of a police chief and the towns dispatcher and ambulance driver. She DID have the training to use a gun if needed.

I am also not saying that because someone is trained they will not make mistakes.

Unfortunately humans make mistake trained to do something or not. So that argument doesn't hold any water.

I was never in the service, but I assume they just give a gun to the new enlisted person and send them off to war. I assume there is some training to that.

Yes they do give military members training...although there is a reason it is referred to as basic training. And I can tell you this they sent my brother to the sandbox after he just got out of basic/A school. Only gun training he ever got was the part in boot camp. His job field was firefighter and they set him on land gave him a gun and said fight. My brother went there too his training was working in the base legal office not battlefield but that is where he wound up. So while yes they get training in a lot of cases it barely scratches the surface

Who will create the program for such courses? Why can't the NRA(affiliates) and respected members of the firearm world do this. Create an independent council. Issues don't change overnight...I rather see slow change then no change. I see it as a compromise, for this point and time.

Um there are courses that train you how to carry and use your weapon safely. Not to mention that most RESPONSIBLE gun owners are going to go the range (most as often as possible) to practice and become skilled in using a weapon. Not to mention most people that want to CCW or LOC or even UOC are going to be smart enough to study up on the laws so they do not do anything that can at best get them a ticket and at worse cost them their freedom and or gun rights.

So, I understand it is a right and completely understand the reasoning from the reading on here. But as of today, it is construed as a privledge. I just have concerns about law-abiding citizens carrying without proper knowledge. Especially since starting to go to the range and I see bullet holes on the table and just above me in the lane. I can't imagine one of them carrying in public.

I am more concerned about those that want to make the law abiding citizens of this country sitting ducks to criminals. I am more concerned about the government officials that seem to ignore the fact that its not the law abiding citizen committing crime and ignore passing good legislation to deael with the criminals. I am more concerned that while our country has a criminal justice system that is better than most it still has SERIOUS issues.

You make the comment about being worried for seeing bullet holes in the table at the range. I am more concerned about the MORON that shoots a gun outside my teenage daughters window. I am more concerned about the druggie neighbor letting his other druggie/dangerous friends in to the complex. I am more concerned that as a disabled woman that one by one my chances of self protection are being taken away one at a time.

mfmayes49
07-20-2009, 9:57 PM
the forefathers put the right to bear arms for the people to be able to defend themselves against a controlling Goverment. My father escaped from Germany during the Hitler years, He was pro gun, and taught us how to defend ourselves, He always said" Don't let it happen again!!"

ericmower
07-20-2009, 11:02 PM
Also interesting are the studies on violent crime convictions of people legally carrying concealed. (By legally carrying I mean concealed carry permit holders) The crimes barely exist! Politicians know this but just want the guns. I liked the video that talked about Kennesaw, GA requiring each household (that was legally able to own them) to own a firearm. Crime rates dropped there. I live in Jackson County, GA. We have to have a GBI background check done to be sure that we can legally possess firearms before being issued a CCP. That is all the action needed to carry concealed. I wish it was like this in more states. Actually, I like the states that allow any law abiding citizens to carry. You are not a criminal needing to be regulated until you commit a crime.

People do forget that the Government should fear us, not the other way around. I have to say that I do not feel that way today. I feel like I have to check the myriad laws to see if I can have a benchmade griptilian (knife)when I walk out in public. It is nearly impossible not to break one law out of the thousands that exist and are created each day. Things should not be this way...

KylaGWolf
07-21-2009, 7:26 AM
the forefathers put the right to bear arms for the people to be able to defend themselves against a controlling Goverment. My father escaped from Germany during the Hitler years, He was pro gun, and taught us how to defend ourselves, He always said" Don't let it happen again!!"

Good for him. And he is right we need to make sure that never happens again.

KylaGWolf
07-21-2009, 7:28 AM
Also interesting are the studies on violent crime convictions of people legally carrying concealed. (By legally carrying I mean concealed carry permit holders) The crimes barely exist! Politicians know this but just want the guns. I liked the video that talked about Kennesaw, GA requiring each household (that was legally able to own them) to own a firearm. Crime rates dropped there. I live in Jackson County, GA. We have to have a GBI background check done to be sure that we can legally possess firearms before being issued a CCP. That is all the action needed to carry concealed. I wish it was like this in more states. Actually, I like the states that allow any law abiding citizens to carry. You are not a criminal needing to be regulated until you commit a crime.

People do forget that the Government should fear us, not the other way around. I have to say that I do not feel that way today. I feel like I have to check the myriad laws to see if I can have a benchmade griptilian (knife)when I walk out in public. It is nearly impossible not to break one law out of the thousands that exist and are created each day. Things should not be this way...

You know the second part of your post says it all.

fullrearview
07-21-2009, 8:21 AM
A good thing you can do is set up an appointment with a jail or prison and see if they will let you interview inmates on gun control. That way you get the perspective from the element that the laws were introduced for. Of course they will laugh when you ask them about it, cuz they all will say it makes their job easier.

Merc1138
07-21-2009, 8:55 AM
A good thing you can do is set up an appointment with a jail or prison and see if they will let you interview inmates on gun control. That way you get the perspective from the element that the laws were introduced for. Of course they will laugh when you ask them about it, cuz they all will say it makes their job easier.

Or just tell you that it doesn't make a difference at all since they're buying them off of the street anyway.

The only aspects of gun control that I agree with, are background checks, the waiting period for a first firearm purchase(don't give me that "but it could mean someone dies while they're waiting" line, you should be prepared already), and ccw permits(provided they actually issue the damn things to people that qualify and "Self defense" is a valid good cause).

Other than that, the number of new handgun purchases per month limit(which is dumb, I think R Lee Ermey in an interview pointed out how dumb it was), ammo restrictions, caliber restrictions, brand name and style restrictions, "Evil features", gun free zones(school zones), capacity limits, open carry restrictions, are all a bunch of crap.

TerryC
07-21-2009, 9:10 AM
I'm writing a paper on gun control, and have many ideas.
I'd like to see what strong arguements you guys can think of that argue in support or agaisnt gun control.

Thanks,
Wilson

Arguments???? How about the Second Amendment, is that a good enough argument? Look you either support the U.S. Constitution or you don't. If you don't support the U.S. Constitution you should move out of this country. You can't pick and choose what portions of the Constitution you embrace and what portions you don't. The Constitution was well thought out based on the experiances the founding fathers had with the royal crown.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."...and...."What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

Noah Webster wrote: "There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "

Thomas Paine wrote: "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside Ö Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

There are thousands of quotes from our founding fathers that give reason for the necessity of the citizens to be armed. Not one of today's politicians agree with them. Some politicians just mimick the words but in reality, do not want the citizen to be armed. The political parties drive wedge issues and allow the other party, who is in power at the time, to further advance gun control. Niether political party would bant a eye if the Supreme court ruled that the citizens right to bear arms was void. It is what the politicians want.

Gun control advocates point to gun violence, accidents, crimes, etc. but they all know it is not a gun that kills, it is people that kill. So what are they afraid of? the gun? no..they are afraid of the people. The one thing that keeps politicians in check is the armed citizen. They can not outlaw elections, or become dictators of laws and agenda's if the people are armed.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson


And the best "argument" for the second amendment and the right to bear arms is below:

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.-Thomas Jefferson

M. Sage
07-21-2009, 3:22 PM
The only aspects of gun control that I agree with, are background checks, the waiting period for a first firearm purchase(don't give me that "but it could mean someone dies while they're waiting" line, you should be prepared already), and ccw permits(provided they actually issue the damn things to people that qualify and "Self defense" is a valid good cause).


You agree with those wastes of time and money? You should check out states where background checks are, for the most part, optional. They're usually the states where waiting periods don't exist.

Let me tell you; waiting periods do nothing. They're simply a burden to make buying a firearm more of a chore for those of us who choose to follow idiotic laws. Since criminals have an easy way around them, there's really no argument to support a waiting period. Likewise with background checks. All they do is spook some gun buyers - I know a lot of folks who'd rather not put their name on a 4473, despite having clear records, so they buy used instead of new (these are residents of TX and other states where private party sales are paperless). Since criminals (and even law-abiding citizens in many cases) have a way around the background check, it makes no sense to leave it in place when its only effect is to deter law-abiding citizens who distrust their government from buying guns. Even if you enact a CA-style 100% mandatory check, only people who are willing to follow a stupid law like that will be checked.

Useless laws that are onerous don't deserve any support.

Even CCW licenses I disagree with. Again, the only people who will follow this law are those who choose to. In a few states, they're not even needed for most day-to-day situations. Alaska and Vermont don't require a license to carry a firearm and quite a few states (unsure of the number) don't require one to carry concealed in your vehicle (as is the law here in TX). For what it's worth, a few states only bothered to regulate the concealed carry of handguns, forgetting about open carry and long guns all together. If you think I can't carry a rifle concealed, you've got another think coming. All I have to say is "underfolder AK" and "tennis racket case".