PDA

View Full Version : Ft. Hood. New gun regs?


Astana
11-07-2009, 5:47 PM
Hiya Calguns.

First of all, I need to say that I am A) a proud gun owner (handguns and shotguns) and B) thankful to all the gracious calgunners who helped me pick out my first shotgun a few months back and C) firmly convinced that we both live in a great country (I have lived in several and am a proud, natural-born US citizen) with a well thought-out and remarkable constitution.

So, my question is this. I ask because I don't have a solution:

What is true middle ground that allows citizens (note: CITIZENS) to own firearms to own and operate firearms in defense of home, property and liberty yet still prevents people from doing sick things with them?

It's obviously not ammo sales bills from Sacramento, and obviously not bans on certain types of guns (which assume that a weapon is more dangerous than a shooter...absurd) but it's also obviously not "we all need a fully auto AK as soon as possible".

What is reasonable and gets to the heart of the matter? Are psychological tests and weapons registration the answer? Should we all go in yearly like our car tags and make sure we haven't gone nuts in the meantime? What will the gub-ment do with that data if we do? Should we all be completely regulation free and wild-west style and allowed to carry at all times in all places? What will happen to the casual crime rate if that occurs?

Again, my fellow calgunners, I am not asking from a particular position. I am asking because I can't come up with a clear solution. I believe it's a difficult question and one that, as trained and responsible gun-owners, we need to ask.

Feel free not to flame me, make references to how you would have killed the guy with one shot from your .50 cal sinper rifle or how all guns are in the process of being banned by evil demons. Really...I'd like to know. What does our (yours AND mine) community feel should be done?

Easy answers include: he was a member of the armed forces and they should have known better, he was using mil-spec ammo, he was a radical Islamist, the soldiers should have been armed, he was one in a million pyscho.

Really. Let's think. What's the answer?

Astana

dustoff31
11-07-2009, 6:00 PM
What can be done? If we accept that everyone, minus prohibited possessors have a right to own, carry, and use firearms, then we must accept that some of those people will use them improperly, and others will die as a result. That's just the way it is.

We assume the risk, and hope that we or our family will not suffer due to another person's criminal, fanatical, or otherwise irresponsible acts.

hawk81
11-07-2009, 9:00 PM
Sometimes bad people do bad things with guns. That is the price you pay to have freedom. Learn to live with it, or move to a country that does not have any freedoms.

audihenry
11-07-2009, 9:42 PM
Sometimes bad people do bad things with guns. That is the price you pay to have freedom. Learn to live with it, or move to a country that does not have any freedoms.

You can't equate the freedom to own a gun with overall freedom, that's just silly. The question is, how do you balance gun rights with rights of society as a whole without tipping one way or another?

That's not something anyone has an answer to.

locosway
11-07-2009, 10:02 PM
They should ban the military from owning weapons!


Seriously though, weapons are already restricted. If you bring in a weapon from the outside it has to be checked in and locked up. If anything, they should allow all soldiers to carry sidearms. I don't see a problem with this.

joelogic
11-07-2009, 10:21 PM
There is no answer. People compromise. Sometimes one side get more of what they want, sometimes less. Some people think everyone should be allowed to own machine guns. Some people think all guns should be banned. How can there be an acceptable middle ground? People will always want something or more of it. More freedom or more government control. Sure you can say a rational person can see the middle but its all about how you phrase the question. Do you want your god given freedoms intact? Do you want the government to keep you safe. There is no both. Californians (obviously a generalization) as a whole see grey when most of the country sees black and white. Here we say ok sure lets have some guns and have some controls. But in the rest of the country that believes in freedom or control you can see why this is such a big deal. We are too quick to come up with excuses for primary problems and then try to solve to secondary problem not the primary. Guns can be dangerous, you have to go through a background check to buy one, someone kills someone, we want want to ban guns. There primary problem is the murder and secondary problem is how he or she was killed. People are over weight, we call it a social health crisis, we sue the people that feed us because its making us fat. The primary problem is you eat the wrong food. Some americans dont have health coverage, some people cant afford health insurance, we want everyone to have health coverage so was tax everyone to pay for the some people. The primary problem is medical cost are out of control. The secondary problem is people cant afford it.

Back to the original point, there can be no middle answer. Which is great think about where we would be as a people if everyone accepted a middle answer. Separate but equal?. Women are equals but cant vote? Dont ask dont tell. People should fight for whats right and what they believe in.

slik556
11-07-2009, 10:26 PM
You can't equate the freedom to own a gun with overall freedom, that's just silly. The question is, how do you balance gun rights with rights of society as a whole without tipping one way or another?

That's not something anyone has an answer to.

How can you not equate the freedom to own a gun with overall freedom. The 2nd Amendment is the only one of the amendments that will guarantee and protect the others!!! With out the 2nd the rest don't mean a thing. It's because of the 2nd that you still have the rest..

drclark
11-07-2009, 10:57 PM
Actually, the right to own firearms is equated with overall freedom in my mind. When all society breaks down or elections become a hollow sham, civilian ownership of firearms allows the individual protect their family and allows the populace to resist an oppressive regime.

Contrary to popular belief, gun violence tends to occur when only one side is armed. The recent shootings at Ft. Hood only reinforce that. Generally, only military police or contracted security forces are the only ones armed on base. Once again, the laws, rules, regulations did not stop someone who has decided to comit murder against his fellow human beings. The only thing that did stop him was when another person with a gun put 4 bullets into the assailant.

No degree of regulation will stop those determined to visit violence and evil upon society. Take the guns away, they will use their car, or knife, or a club or their bare hands. We all want to live in a utopia where we can all walk around in condition white, blissfully ignorant and trusting of all around us. Unfortunately that will never happen. We need to change our culture to accept the fact that there will always be evil among us, and bad things can happen at any minute. Society in general needs to be mentally prepared to fight evil when neccessary and we need to have access to the tools to do so. I accept the fact that thee price of living in a free and open society is that it allows opportnities for violence to occur.

robairto
11-07-2009, 11:11 PM
How can you not equate the freedom to own a gun with overall freedom. The 2nd Amendment is the only one of the amendments that will garunte and protect the others!!! With out the 2nd the rest don't mean a thing. It's because of the 2nd that you still have the rest..

The 2nd Amendment to me means:
1. The right which secures all the others
2. The right which allows a physical response to threats made by an individual/group/ or entity against the inidividual.

The questions the OP asked are valid and worth pondering but the freedoms we have come with risk. It's no different than driving down the freeway. Maybe the state of Ca. should finger print all who buy gas. They might fine that some folks don't have licenses and shouldn't be driving. Hmmmm?

audihenry
11-07-2009, 11:54 PM
It's because of the 2nd that you still have the rest..

Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that some guy having the right to open carry in Alabama somehow guarantees the other, more important rights that you and I enjoy?

The 2nd amendment has been twisted and turned to fit whatever agendas are required by the right (and the left for the opposite reason).

The notion that the 2nd amendment now gives us all freedom (or prevents us from having it) is beyond absurd. By that token, the countries which do not have whatever vague references to that sort of freedom are, well, not free. You will find that the people in those countries will disagree with you severely.

locosway
11-07-2009, 11:57 PM
Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that some guy having the right to open carry in Alabama somehow guarantees the other, more important rights that you and I enjoy?

The 2nd amendment has been twisted and turned to fit whatever agendas are required by the right (and the left for the opposite reason).

The notion that the 2nd amendment now gives us all freedom (or prevents us from having it) is beyond absurd. By that token, the countries which do not have whatever vague references to that sort of freedom are, well, not free. You will find that the people in those countries will disagree with you severely.

The second was added to the BoR because there needed to be a clause to remove persons who pervert the constitution when all other ways fail. We have ways to remove people who do such things, however, sometimes force is needed. The framers knew this, so we kept our arms.

So, yes, the second gives us the other rights. Without an armed public we're slaves without a means to revolt against bad government.

If you don't believe me, look at Iran.

audihenry
11-08-2009, 12:02 AM
The second was added to the BoR because there needed to be a clause to remove persons who pervert the constitution when all other ways fail. We have ways to remove people who do such things, however, sometimes force is needed. The framers knew this, so we kept our arms.

So, yes, the second gives us the other rights. Without an armed public we're slaves without a means to revolt against bad government.

If you don't believe me, look at Iran.

Many would argue that the government has failed the people many times yet I don't see any movement to depose it. In fact, the same people who exercise the 2nd would be the last people to overthrow a democratically "elected" government, so it's all a fairy tale notion.

The last time this was seriously (and remotely) attempted, the people trying it were black (BPP) and college kids (SDS, WU, etc.), and we know how that ended. :rolleyes:

slik556
11-08-2009, 12:27 AM
Many would argue that the government has failed the people many times yet I don't see any movement to depose it. In fact, the same people who exercise the 2nd would be the last people to overthrow a democratically "elected" government, so it's all a fairy tale notion.

The last time this was seriously (and remotely) attempted, the people trying it were black (BPP) and college kids (SDS, WU, etc.), and we know how that ended. :rolleyes:

Reading through the post you leave I don't know how you haven't beat yourself with your on pistol... You have got to have a ton of splinters in your as.s from jumping back and forth over the fence... I for one don't see how you can justify that if the 2nd was nonexistent we would be better off....

locosway
11-08-2009, 12:28 AM
Many would argue that the government has failed the people many times yet I don't see any movement to depose it. In fact, the same people who exercise the 2nd would be the last people to overthrow a democratically "elected" government, so it's all a fairy tale notion.

The last time this was seriously (and remotely) attempted, the people trying it were black (BPP) and college kids (SDS, WU, etc.), and we know how that ended. :rolleyes:

I'm still trying to find out why you're a member of this site, and why you spend so much time here. So far it's eluded me, but I think I'm getting close to the truth.

One day you're going to wake up and a light is going to go off. You're gonna say "Those people were right!". Until then, I, or anyone else, will not be able to show you the way.

audihenry
11-08-2009, 12:37 AM
Reading through the post you leave I don't know how you haven't beat yourself with your on pistol... You have got to have a ton of splinters in your as.s from jumping back and forth over the fence... I for one don't see how you can justify that if the 2nd was nonexistent we would be better off....

See, this is the kind of attitude: you're either a hard core, gun totin', 2nd amendment loving guy, or you're not one of us because you have different opinions!

Don't put words in my mouth: I never said we'd be better off if the 2nd amendment didn't exist, I simply said that you cannot tie overall freedom with the freedom to bear arms.

audihenry
11-08-2009, 12:39 AM
I'm still trying to find out why you're a member of this site, and why you spend so much time here. So far it's eluded me, but I think I'm getting close to the truth.

One day you're going to wake up and a light is going to go off. You're gonna say "Those people were right!". Until then, I, or anyone else, will not be able to show you the way.

Why I'm a member? Let's see: I like guns, I enjoy shooting, I like the history behind them.

Do I have to be a Republican, armed-forces loving, Obama hating, white dude to have that privilege?

Cokebottle
11-08-2009, 12:46 AM
but it's also obviously not "we all need a fully auto AK as soon as possible".
That is actually closer to the truth than many would like to admit.

Look at crime statistics in areas that have loosened CCW requirements. Compare current stats to stats prior to them loosening requirements.
In every case, there has been an overall drop in violent crime... even if you factor in the various rise and fall of the national crime rate.
Areas that tighten gun control ordinances see an increase in violent crime and robbery/burglary.


While none of that matters to someone who is mentally ill, the potential criminal who is of a more rational mind is not going to go into a situation knowing that there is a high probability that they will face armed opposition.

Obviously, that was not the case with Ft. Hood, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc... Those were suicide missions. The kids at Columbine were already in violation of something like 22 BATF and Colorado laws. One more law, or 100 more laws, would not have prevented these tragedies. Somehow, they would have obtained weapons and used them.

However, had the potential victims been armed and skilled in their use, perhaps the death toll from these incidents would have been 1 or 2 or 3 rather than dozens.

Limited gun control only removes defensive weapons from law abiding citizens. Look at Mexico. The drug cartels have no trouble obtaining weaponry that is capable of intimidating and overpowering municipal police agencies... yet Mexico has extremely tight gun control laws.

slik556
11-08-2009, 12:54 AM
See, this is the kind of attitude: you're either a hard core, gun totin', 2nd amendment loving guy, or you're not one of us because you have different opinions!

Don't put words in my mouth: I never said we'd be better off if the 2nd amendment didn't exist, I simply said that you cannot tie overall freedom with the freedom to bear arms.

At least I have an opinion! Like I said you cant make up your mind... Yes I have a strong one sided opinion on the 2nd but you have none... So you wont care one way or the other when bans and confiscations are upon us? You don't stand up for anything just sit on the fence while either side deals with the other..

audihenry
11-08-2009, 12:59 AM
At least I have an opinion! Like I said you cant make up your mind... Yes I have a strong one sided opinion on the 2nd but you have none... So you wont care one way or the other when bans and confiscations are upon us? You don't stand up for anything just sit on the fence while either side deals with the other..

I was very clear: the 2nd amendment is not the most fundamental nor important right provided, there are far more important ones. This doesn't mean I hate guns or I'm changing sides, simply pointing out that the right to own guns is not the most cherished of them all. At least not for me.

Lomic
11-08-2009, 2:13 AM
I was very clear: the 2nd amendment is not the most fundamental nor important right provided, there are far more important ones. This doesn't mean I hate guns or I'm changing sides, simply pointing out that the right to own guns is not the most cherished of them all. At least not for me.

I think the point that others are trying to make is this:

What are all the other rights/freedoms provided by the BoR worth if someone with a gun tells you you can't have them anymore? What will you do if you cannot take them court, because the courts do not have guns either?

And, is the right to protect your very life from those who would do you harm by any means not the most fundamental of rights? What are the rest worth if you are not alive.

I agree, that in times of peace and order, other rights are more useful and cherished in the moment, but we can't forget how these rights came to be "guaranteed", nor be naive enough to think that they could never be taken away.

Ladyfox
11-08-2009, 10:45 AM
The notion that the 2nd amendment now gives us all freedom (or prevents us from having it) is beyond absurd. By that token, the countries which do not have whatever vague references to that sort of freedom are, well, not free. You will find that the people in those countries will disagree with you severely.

How exactly is it absurd? I'm really curious to hear this one since it's been shown in many different areas of the world that if you do not protect your freedom by threat of arms you will soon not have any freedoms at all.

Let's just name off a few that come to mind: Iraq (military dictatorship), Afganistan (religious and military dictatorship), Cuba (military dictatorship), China (military dictatorship), North Korea (military dictatorship)

Now, let's list off a few places where force of arms HAS given and guaranteed freedom: United States (armed rebellion against British rule), Israel (armed resistance against Arabic states) *

I could come up with a few more I'm sure if given more time but in all cases those nations where freedom of arms was not given to the population it usually wound up really badly when the government decided that the population no longer needed any freedom. The fact that most European countries have managed to last this long is mainly due to over 80 years of indoctrination by the ruling parties there that they have simply bred out the problem. Ask a European citizen if they wished to have a 2A and they would react in such a way that the Brady Campaign would fall instantly in love.

Believe how you wish but do consider what would you do if the government knocked on your door and asked for your children. Would you just hand them over or would you be a hypocrite and use a firearm to protect them?

* Yes I am fully aware of the controversy here but the base idea is the same; freedom won and defended by force of arms by the general populace

dwa
11-08-2009, 11:53 AM
Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that some guy having the right to open carry in Alabama somehow guarantees the other, more important rights that you and I enjoy?

The 2nd amendment has been twisted and turned to fit whatever agendas are required by the right (and the left for the opposite reason).

The notion that the 2nd amendment now gives us all freedom (or prevents us from having it) is beyond absurd. By that token, the countries which do not have whatever vague references to that sort of freedom are, well, not free. You will find that the people in those countries will disagree with you severely.
read some history at times slaves were treated fairly well, as were various conquered people, the main correlation you ll see however is they were not allowed arms, if you are not allowed weapons you are not free. The people in those other countries are not free, its just no one has come for the more obvious freedoms yet. If you ask someone in London if they are free they of course will say yes yet they cannot defend themselves and are being recorded many places they go.

so in effect they are slaves that simply have it pretty good.

Astana
11-08-2009, 12:07 PM
We are too quick to come up with excuses for primary problems and then try to solve to secondary problem not the primary. Guns can be dangerous, you have to go through a background check to buy one, someone kills someone, we want want to ban guns. There primary problem is the murder and secondary problem is how he or she was killed.

I absolutely could not agree more. Instance:

1. VA Techs/Ft. Hood/etc occurs.

2. Immediate backlash against firearms ensues. This backlash has confused correlation with causation just as Joe describes. The true problem is that you have a sick person. The secondary problem is that a sick person had access to a firearm.

3. Queue firearm abolitionists who wish to repeal the 2nd ammendment.

4. Firearms community gets frightened that their rights will be taken away and stakes a position an equidistance from the center in the opposite direction.

Result? Lots of shouting and absurd patchwork regulations that don't manage to actually accomplish anything other than offer placebos to gun haters and annoy gun owners. Psychos, in the meantime, continue to find ways to get guns.

That's what I was getting at. Is there no middle ground that alows us to address the real problem (sick people and criminals) without both sides beating their chests so hard that it becomes shrill and illogical?

---

Oh, and per the other point that crept up in this thread, the Japanese Army declined to invade Australia in WWII because their scenario models showed unreasonable casualty rates due to massive armed resistance from Aussies with hunting rifles and shotguns.

Potential enemies aren't exclusively domestic, let's not forget that "militia" part of the wording.

nick
11-08-2009, 12:13 PM
Hiya Calguns.

First of all, I need to say that I am A) a proud gun owner (handguns and shotguns) and B) thankful to all the gracious calgunners who helped me pick out my first shotgun a few months back and C) firmly convinced that we both live in a great country (I have lived in several and am a proud, natural-born US citizen) with a well thought-out and remarkable constitution.

So, my question is this. I ask because I don't have a solution:

What is true middle ground that allows citizens (note: CITIZENS) to own firearms to own and operate firearms in defense of home, property and liberty yet still prevents people from doing sick things with them?

It's obviously not ammo sales bills from Sacramento, and obviously not bans on certain types of guns (which assume that a weapon is more dangerous than a shooter...absurd) but it's also obviously not "we all need a fully auto AK as soon as possible".

What is reasonable and gets to the heart of the matter? Are psychological tests and weapons registration the answer? Should we all go in yearly like our car tags and make sure we haven't gone nuts in the meantime? What will the gub-ment do with that data if we do? Should we all be completely regulation free and wild-west style and allowed to carry at all times in all places? What will happen to the casual crime rate if that occurs?

Again, my fellow calgunners, I am not asking from a particular position. I am asking because I can't come up with a clear solution. I believe it's a difficult question and one that, as trained and responsible gun-owners, we need to ask.

Feel free not to flame me, make references to how you would have killed the guy with one shot from your .50 cal sinper rifle or how all guns are in the process of being banned by evil demons. Really...I'd like to know. What does our (yours AND mine) community feel should be done?

Easy answers include: he was a member of the armed forces and they should have known better, he was using mil-spec ammo, he was a radical Islamist, the soldiers should have been armed, he was one in a million pyscho.

Really. Let's think. What's the answer?

Astana

The answer is to not run around screaming that the sky is falling, and not to try to legislate something that's not as much of a problem as the media hype tries to make you believe. How many of such shootings do occur? How many people are killed or injured in them annually?

How do those numbers compare to other non-natural causes of death? If you look into that, you'll discover that we legislate the most on something that's not even close to the top of the list of causes of non-natural deaths.

Moreover, you're buying into the idea that the gun is somehow responsible, and not the human using it. So the more proper question here would be "how do we regulate human behavior" rather than "how do we regulate inanimate objects". Don't like where this is going? I hope you don't.

The thing is, you can't regulate and legislate your way out of everything. Trying to do so would make things much, much worse. The price of living among humans is that some humans will commit crimes. No matter how much legislation you heap on them, short of keeping each human in a pen with 24/7 surveillance, you won't prevent crimes from occurring. Trying to do so beyond reason (and we've gone far beyond reason by now) will result in diminishing returns, and often in a reversal. Moreover, you'll probably create a society you don't want to live in. We've gone quite far in that direction, too.

So, the sky isn't falling. There's no need for more regulations. If anything, there's a need for less of that. If you see a successful school or office shooting, ask yourself what their firearms policy (or local firearms laws) is. It's probably something to the tune of "zero tolerance". If anything can do a better job of creating a safe target rich environment for the criminal, I'm yet to see it. So if I were you, I'd rather consider that than a bunch of more restrictions. Trying to solve something that's largely a result of restrictions on law-abiding citizens with more restrictions on law-abiding citizens is plain insane.

locosway
11-08-2009, 2:22 PM
I was very clear: the 2nd amendment is not the most fundamental nor important right provided, there are far more important ones. This doesn't mean I hate guns or I'm changing sides, simply pointing out that the right to own guns is not the most cherished of them all. At least not for me.

What protects your first or fourth amendment?

Lets imagine there were no guns, what would keep our country from being any different than say the UK? Have you seen how their citizens are treated over there?

yellowfin
11-08-2009, 2:35 PM
The notion that the 2nd amendment now gives us all freedom (or prevents us from having it) is beyond absurd. By that token, the countries which do not have whatever vague references to that sort of freedom are, well, not free. That is very easily demonstrable by several measures. Barbarism at the hands of their own government in some cases and at the hands of criminals unchecked by force of individual self defense in many if not most. Those without that particular problem, and a few with it, have exorbitant tax rates which are tantamount to slavery.You will find that the people in those countries will disagree with you severely.Stockholm syndrome.

Sniper3142
11-08-2009, 4:52 PM
Hiya Calguns.

What is true middle ground that allows citizens (note: CITIZENS) to own firearms to own and operate firearms in defense of home, property and liberty yet still prevents people from doing sick things with them?

Astana

Here is an answer...

The same things that prevent people from running others over with vehicles.

The same things that prevent people from pouring gasoline on someone and lighting it.

The same things that prevent people from stabbing others with knives, forks, pens, etc.



Do you sense a THEME here?!?

The TOOL or METHOD that someone uses to harm another is NOT the problem.

It is acting on the DESIRE or INTENT to harm other people is the problem.

Solve that and you fix the problem.


By The Way... GOOD LUCK.

:(

Cokebottle
11-08-2009, 5:02 PM
What is true middle ground that allows citizens (note: CITIZENS) to own firearms to own and operate firearms in defense of home, property and liberty yet still prevents people from doing sick things with them?
BTW: There is no legal prohibition on a non-citizen living in the country legally owning a firearm. The Constitution applies to all persons living in this country, as the Constitution is not a list of rights that we have, but rather, a list of prohibitions and permissions directed to the government.

The Constitution does not give us the right to free speech, keep and bear arms, etc... the Constitution prevents the government from taking those rights away.