Gun professionals screw up.

[jkm2500 0]

I hate getting into debates with you, not because you are right or wrong, but merely because you fail to see anyone else's point. It is like when I try to tell my 4yo old to eat his peas, I may know what I feel is right, he wont listen.

The whole point of the gun control side of the argument (hell, both sides if you think open mindedly) is that people want to have a feeling of safety. For the anti-gunners nobody owning a firearm is the way to achieve that level of safety. It is in my opinion a false sense of safety (but my opinion might be skewed considering that I have on at least one occasion used a firearm to insure my personal safety).

THe idea that because something is legal or illegal and therefore doesn't happen is irrelevant. If all people in the US were law abiding, we wouldn't be having this debate.

So the question is, is it your paranoia that rules out....or mine? I personally would rather not be the victim of a violent crime, and unfortunately the statistics say that eventually me or one of my (only) ten friends will be a victim. But, if I am the victim, I want the ability to defend myself. Selfish...maybe. But, your reasoning is just as solid as mine. However, your reasoning would also indicate that we shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, own hair dryers, skydive, or any other "dangerous activity" that has been used as an example. Because, your paranoid about safety.....



I ran the spell checker....."skydive" is misspelled on a skydiving website, go figure.

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

I hate getting into debates with you, not because you are right or wrong, but merely because you fail to see anyone else's point. It is like when I try to tell my 4yo old to eat his peas, I may know what I feel is right, he wont listen.

The whole point of the gun control side of the argument (hell, both sides if you think open mindedly) is that people want to have a feeling of safety. For the anti-gunners nobody owning a firearm is the way to achieve that level of safety. It is in my opinion a false sense of safety (but my opinion might be skewed considering that I have on at least one occasion used a firearm to insure my personal safety).

THe idea that because something is legal or illegal and therefore doesn't happen is irrelevant. If all people in the US were law abiding, we wouldn't be having this debate.

So the question is, is it your paranoia that rules out....or mine? I personally would rather not be the victim of a violent crime, and unfortunately the statistics say that eventually me or one of my (only) ten friends will be a victim. But, if I am the victim, I want the ability to defend myself. Selfish...maybe. But, your reasoning is just as solid as mine. However, your reasoning would also indicate that we shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, own hair dryers, skydive, or any other "dangerous activity" that has been used as an example. Because, your paranoid about safety.....



I ran the spell checker....."skydive" is misspelled on a skydiving website, go figure.

You misrepresent my position. At no time have I said guns should be outlawed. I have said that I consider the average gun owner to be self-deluding about the "safety" gun ownership confers, and consequently dangerous.

Every illegally owned gun was once the property of a legal owner. Claiming that criminals will always get guns is exactly the same as saying legal gun owners are careless in looking after their weapons.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Every illegally owned gun was once the property of a legal owner.

That's not true. Illegal weapons are imported into the United States and distributed.

Since you won't believe that anyways, I'm not going to even bother posting the data to back it up. You'll just ignore the data and call my dog a commie or something.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

That's not true. Illegal weapons are imported into the United States and distributed.

That doesn't dispute the fact that even those guns where at some point legally owned. He didn't say legally owned in the US.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

That doesn't dispute the fact that even those guns where at some point legally owned. He didn't say legally owned in the US.

Ha, ok...it was implied though.

Anyways, sure they were almost all legally owned at some point, since the factory that makes them can legally own them. This is true except for illegal arms manufactures that are sprinkled through the globe making knockoff weapons at cheap prices.


Eitherway grasping at straws like that is funny. Keep doing it since I hadn't laughed that hard yet today, until I read your post.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Keep doing it since I hadn't laughed that hard yet today, until I read your post.

I am happy to supply some comedic relief, my wife always tells me I have no sense of humour.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I am happy to supply some comedic relief, my wife always tells me I have no sense of humour.

Well, I have an extremely dry sense of humor...way dry...british dry, so it little things like that give me a chuckle.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

Ha, ok...it was implied though.

Biggest problem with SC....saying that things are implied/making up what the other person is implying. For example, just because I point out issues with guns, it's implied I want them banned.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[DrunkMonkey 0]

I like rabbits.

[AggieDave 6]

Screw you and your cult like desire to ban all guns.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

You misrepresent my position. At no time have I said guns should be outlawed. I have said that I consider the average gun owner to be self-deluding about the "safety" gun ownership confers, and consequently dangerous.

Every illegally owned gun was once the property of a legal owner. Claiming that criminals will always get guns is exactly the same as saying legal gun owners are careless in looking after their weapons

I guess it could be seen as though I misrepresent your position. However, you didn't answer the question...is it your paranoia or mine that rules out?

Because you are right, every illegally owned firearm once had a legal owner. But kallend, anything can be used illegally, from a gun to a car to baseball bats. Does using a gun to commit murder make guns illegal? or does murder make murder illegal? As far as I know (and I am nowhere near as educated as you are), killing someone is illegal. It doesn't matter the means. So, tell me again.....what is your position?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

Screw you and your cult like desire to ban all guns.

No, it's not my cult like desire. It's my selfish desire to make sure no one else has any fun ever!

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[DrunkMonkey 0]

I said "I Like Rabbits," Dammit!

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

I said "I Like Rabbits," Dammit!

Me too, they are cute and cuddly.....taste like chicken!

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[kallend 2,175]

Quote

Quote

You misrepresent my position. At no time have I said guns should be outlawed. I have said that I consider the average gun owner to be self-deluding about the "safety" gun ownership confers, and consequently dangerous.

Every illegally owned gun was once the property of a legal owner. Claiming that criminals will always get guns is exactly the same as saying legal gun owners are careless in looking after their weapons

I guess it could be seen as though I misrepresent your position. However, you didn't answer the question...is it your paranoia or mine that rules out?

Because you are right, every illegally owned firearm once had a legal owner. But kallend, anything can be used illegally, from a gun to a car to baseball bats. Does using a gun to commit murder make guns illegal? or does murder make murder illegal? As far as I know (and I am nowhere near as educated as you are), killing someone is illegal. It doesn't matter the means. So, tell me again.....what is your position?

My position is that the 2nd Amendment means what it says. Along with the right to bear arms, however, comes a responsibility that I see neglected by many many gun lovers. A responsibility to recognize that guns are indeed killing machines (unlike swimming pools, a most stupid comparison). A responsibility to prevent killing machines from getting into the hands of criminals or children, a responsibilty to be properly trained, a responsibility to recognize, rather than dismiss, the horrific gun murder rate. I see the right to have guns as inextricably linked to the obligation to be "well regulated".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,600]

Quote

I said "I Like Rabbits," Dammit!

I want to shoot them.

With rubber bands

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

but it took the buscuit for me when visiting my brother in CO (bailey) on a sunny sat. afternoon with my family we were playing (note not very noisy) tunes out side his mountain house and the neighbour (who knew my bro and his wife and baby well) came out brandishing his side by side shotgun to ask if we could turn the tunes down.

Brandishing in that manner is not permitted in most, if all states.

Neither is murder. So there are no murders in the USA?

The point is that brandishing in that manner is not a common occurence, or a legal one. If every visitor to the country had an experience like that, I'd agree that we have a problem.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

My position is that the 2nd Amendment means what it says. Along with the right to bear arms, however, comes a responsibility that I see neglected by many many gun lovers. A responsibility to recognize that guns are indeed killing machines (unlike swimming pools, a most stupid comparison). A responsibility to prevent killing machines from getting into the hands of criminals or children, a responsibilty to be properly trained, a responsibility to recognize, rather than dismiss, the horrific gun murder rate. I see the right to have guns as inextricably linked to the obligation to be "well regulated".

Well, at least you and I can agree on the first sentence. The second amendment directly and clearly recognizes and individual right to keep and bear arms.

However, becoming properly trained is made significantly more difficult by factions in our government passing unconstitutional laws. Afterall, it's ahrd to be trained with battle rifles when the BATFE limits who can own one, and several states outright ban their ownership. Perhaps once the government stops trying to take guns away from people, the people will be far more willing to seek guidance in proper ownership.

I must disagree with your proposed chain of responsibility for stolen arms. Would you propose we hold car owners liable when their cars are stolen and used in crimes? Would it be your fault if a joyrider drove your car into a crowd? Would that homicide be your responsibility?

Finally, if that "well regulated" remark is referencing the second amendment, then you must be going forgetful in your old age, professor.

It's been explained to you many times that well regulated, as used by the founding fathers, refers to "in good working order."
(see following post for details, again)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Quote

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

In 1781 in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX, Thomas Jefferson described the militia: "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[jkm2500 0]

Quote

My position is that the 2nd Amendment means what it says. Along with the right to bear arms, however, comes a responsibility that I see neglected by many many gun lovers. A responsibility to recognize that guns are indeed killing machines (unlike swimming pools, a most stupid comparison). A responsibility to prevent killing machines from getting into the hands of criminals or children, a responsibilty to be properly trained, a responsibility to recognize, rather than dismiss, the horrific gun murder rate. I see the right to have guns as inextricably linked to the obligation to be "well regulated".

So, according to your logic we should "regulate" automobiles better than we do, because responsiblities are being neglected? What about baseball bats? What about box cutters? What about (something similarly dangerous) ad nauseum? I agree that there are irresponsible people out there.

My next question for you is, why arent we prosecuting the irresponsible ones? Cant we do that without making it difficult on the law abiding (responsible) citizens?

The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.

[billvon 3,131]

>So, according to your logic we should "regulate" automobiles better
>than we do . . . .

Uh, not sure you're aware of this, but we DO regulate cars like crazy. See if any of these sound familiar:

-Registration, with fee
-License, with test and fee, revocable for any number of reasons
-Insurance requirements
-Limitations on alcohol and prescription drug usage while operating vehicle
-Limitations on speed limits and which roads you can operate on
-Parking regulations
-Maintenance regulations with inspection requirements
-Emissions regulations

You OK with regulating guns like that?

>My next question for you is, why arent we prosecuting the
> irresponsible ones? Cant we do that without making it difficult on
>the law abiding (responsible) citizens?

Ay, there's the rub. Doing absolutely nothing about handgun control probably isn't a good idea; it would be bad if a convicted felon got out of prison on parole and could easily buy an arsenal. Doing too much is also bad; keeping guns out of law-abiding citizen's hands helps no one but criminals. So it's up to us to find a balance. (Which you won't see much of here; everyone is either convinced that guns are going to end the world, or that everyone is out to steal their guns away from them.)

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

it would be bad if a convicted felon got out of prison on parole and could easily buy an arsenal

An aside to this thought.

Quality weapons aren't cheap, infact every purchase I make has to be planned well ahead so I can start saving money, pinching penny's and the like. Hell, when I bought my Kimber, I had been saving money and wanting to purchase this weapon for atleast 8 months and I still had to put it on lay-away.

Atleast I'm not subject to waiting periods in TX due to my extra license...then again that license cost a bit of money and it required a nice clean record of being a law abiding citizen.


Anyways, ramblings aside, my point is that there are already quite a few (read: hundreds and hundreds) of regulations on the books and some of them are quite worthwhile (such as your mention of a felon); however, as stated many times before, the answer isn't more regulation. The answer is actual and full enforcement of said regulations, to keep weapons out of the hands of those who has forgone their right due to a legal ruling or other conservative restriction (under age for instance or of unsound mental health) and keep those who have a right to firearms protected from loosing their right.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[penniless 0]

Quote

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Quote

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

In 1781 in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Query IX, Thomas Jefferson described the militia: "Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50 is enrolled in the militia. .... In every county is a county lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county. .... The governor is the head of the military, as well as the civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service."

Well, those regulations have been long ignored. Maybe it's time to reintroduce them to satisfy the 2nd amendment and make sure that the militia is "functioning as expected". How would you propose going about that? First find out who has what weapons, maybe? The require some training?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

as used by the founding fathers

ah yes, your founding fathers.

So, where is the outrage regarding what your Congress and White House have done in the Shiavo case. Even federal judges are saying that it clearly goes against what the founding fathers intended and clearly goes against your constitution.

I am not hearing much of an outrage against that.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

(Which you won't see much of here; everyone is either convinced that guns are going to end the world, or that everyone is out to steal their guns away from them.)

I agree with your statement about balance.

But isn't the 2nd group justified in worrying that their guns might taken away exactly because the 1st group wants to do exactly that?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants