Just be careful about the sources of statistics. I can take many of these studies and with a few choice words make the same study state guns are bad and guns are good.

Both the NRA and the Brady Bunch can generate "proof" to support their agendas.

Take in both sides and let your common sense decide.

I think these two common sense questions help clarify gun control.

1. Do you believe gun control laws will stop criminals or law-abiding citiizens from obtaining guns?

2. Do you believe we will ever be a "gun free" society.

The answers are obvious....therefore the conclusion should be just as obvious....

 

Just remember there is a difference between a right and a privilege.

We don't have the right to drive a car. It is a privilege to do so and we are expected to follow the laws governing that privilege.

Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. Licensing , I would argue, infringes on that right. Your constitutional rights can only be usurped by due process. Restricting my right to purchase and carry a hand gun when I have done no wrong is an infringement of my 2nd amendment right.

Jim

 

Excellent volley-

How about prior ballistic testing of the weapon, and identity matching of the owner? That way if that gun is used to commit a crime- not defense of you and your property- but a crime, then that gun can be traced right to the owner of record?

I'm sure that wouldn't sit well either as a few soldiers revolted when Ft. Hood began taking DNA samples of newly in-processed soldiers as part of signing in. A few refused because they thought if they ever commited a crime, they'd be giving up their 5th amendment right having already submitted a DNA sample.

I, on the other hand- don't plan on killing anyone, or committing any crimes- so I gave my sample as did hundreds others...

 

Most law enforcement agencies have determined that balistic testing, or getting samples of a fired casing in a database, is a waste of time. It was a good theory but has proven unrealistic. A simple screwdriver in the barrell would change the markings on the casing. The casings are not unique enough to make positive identification possible. People were led to believe they were like fingerprints, well that is wrong.

 

Before most of you keep trying to defend your "rights", I suggest you go down to you nearest university and take a logical reasoning course so that you can at least make some sort of reasoable argument. The ammount of circular, straw-man, slipepr-sliope ect arguments circulating here is shamefull. Remember, being ignorant and choosing to accept only facts that support you side is not a good way to go about a healthy debate.

 

First let me say I can understand some of the statements about people should have training before owning a gun, or perhaps some kind of license so law enforcement would know who has guns and what type. To some degree that is practiced even though it is un-Constitutional.

I can understand the feelings behind those types of statements but there is a reason they were not part of the Constitution and the reason is because any kind of “license” or “registration” is un-Constitutional.

The Second Amendment makes it absolutely clear that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. That means, per the Constitution, there is to be no mandated requirements by any government source, be it politicians, law enforcement or any other group that any individual should be required to “license” or “register” any gun.

Why, because then the government has a record of every individual that could “possibly” be a threat should that government decide to repress its people. Peace is only maintained by force or the threat of possible force. Guns are that threat, or possible threat that maintains peace in this country.

There is a very simple and Constitutional process to revoke the Second Amendment and it’s called repelling an Amendment. It is the same process for adding an Amendment. 2/3rds of both Houses have to approve a bill and then it has to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states, which is at least 38 states.

The problems is the majority of Americans will never let this happen but anti-gun ownership people just hate the fact that majority rules…

People have the right to voice their opinions due to the First Amendment but they do not have the right to force their minority views on the majority since there is no Amendment giving them that right and that is exactly as the authors of the Constitution intended it to be…

The ONLY gun law laws that should be on the books should be against those who use them illegally, which the majority of the time, are criminals. Unfortunately, the small minority of people for gun control for some odd reason think criminals that use guns are victims rather then scum bags that should be in prison until the day they die…

There is a VERY EASY way to solve gun crime in America. If you use a gun to commit any type of crime you go to prison until you die (even if it is your very first time committing a crime). That will eliminate the vast majority of gun crimes guaranteed…

 

Is it true that one of the first things the **** party did when they gained power was to disarm the citizenry?

At any rate, I'm glad this thread has intelligent debate and has not resorted to name-calling (which would close it). I think this is a great topic to discuss, as it affects us all in one way or another.

And I also believe that socio-economic factors are far more relavent than race when it comes to crime stats. But that's just my opinion.

 

First of all, when I said "2nd amendment blah blah", I meant no disrespect to the Constitution. It was a bad way to paraphrase.

Now, good arguments from both sides. We have livened the board up again which had slackened since the election

Ok, so the 2nd amendment gives the people to bear arms as a safeguard against future governments.
Like I said in my previous post, that was very different times.
Democracy was a very new thing for the USA at that time (I won't even get into the rights of women and the slaves) and there was no guarantee that the English or even the French would invade or that the government would succeed. They needed people to be armed so the could be raised as a militia to defend the country.
Moving to 2005, it is highly unlikely that the USA would vote in a dictator or suffer a military coup. You are too far along a different path for that.

Let's just say, for example that the govt. did call the military out against the general populace.

1. I don't think the average soldier would do it because he is the American people. There's just nothing in it for him. There would be a mutiny.

2. If they did, how well would the average joe do against the military?
You have your .45 and I'll have the minigun in the chopper from that video we have been watching.

By having the right to bear arms just puts guns into the population where they are not really needed and available for crime.

 

Something else that I think is important to remember and many people over look is the fact that with the Second Amendment and citizens having the right to own guns may have, and I stress “may have” prevented possible invasions into the United States in the past.

Now, I am not talking Colonel times, but late 1800’s, early 1900’s and maybe even in our present time. An enemy would be quite naive to try and invade a country where it’s or some of its citizens are armed. You think there is guerrilla warfare in Iraq now, you haven’t seen any kind of guerrilla warfare unless someone was naive enough to try and invade America…

 

English Adam, a lot if what you say makes sense.

 

I have no idea what Serge is talking about so I'll just move on.....

Jordan, yes that is true.

English,

I figured as much about the blah blah blah, it is just such a pasionate topic for me. No disrepect taken.....


You mentioned that it is very unlikely that the US willl vote in a dictator. I believe it is more likely now than 200 years ago. Will we have a sadam in 4 years no....but those types of dictators rise from allowing our rights to be slowly eroded.

You're right about my hand gun against a chopper. One on one we'd get killed. If we formed one of those militia things we'd really put up a fight. Look what the iraqis are doing and we'd have a lot more resources available to us.

I couldn't disagree with your last statement more....

Here is a quote as to why I believe a dictator is more likely now then 200 years ago:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years.

These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith;from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty;from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness;from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy;from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage." Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

 

too bad this is how the majority of people vote. Theyy listen to the tripe of the 2 parties and accept it as gospel without truly understanding ALL of the facts.

 

Unfortunately, many universities have no logical reasoning course. Typically, many if not all, the left leaning universities teach no logic whatsoever…

The sad truth is many junior high schools, high schools and universities don’t teach any true history of our great country. Ask 10 people simple questions about the Constitution and I would be willing to bet 9 of them would not have any clue and the 10th one would look at you funny…

 

My boss was telling a story about something that happened to him on his way home from work one night. Basically, it was a road rage incident being recounted. The story ended with... "I wish that a--hole had just got out of his vehicle, I would have shot him right there." It does scare me that idiots like this have guns; but, it's part of the cost for decent folks being able to protect themselves and, potentially, our way of life.

There are idiots that abuse our other rights as well. Freedom of Speech for instance. How many of us have met the person that thinks freedom of speech means that they can say whatever they want to someone, or about someone, and there isn't a damned thing that can be done about it. Freedom of the Press is one that truly amazes me. The Press seems to very nearly get by with the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. There are limits, and consequences for exceeding those limits, for every right we enjoy the freedom to exercise. Use a Firearm to commit a crime, and you pay for it. Exceed the limits of free speech with the wrong person; and, you find yourself choking on your own teeth and reconsidering you definition of free speech. Write lies about the wrong person in your newspaper; and, you can count on a trip to court, followed by a serious negative correction of your assets.

Most people understand that there are boundaries that are not to be crossed. Some people will push those boundaries to the edge of snapping. Others will roll out of bounds with their foot pushing the accelerator through the floorboard and not stop until they are stopped by someone. Guns are not the problem. Screwed up people are.

 

yeah i know what u mean there- nobody my age knows anything about history- i loved studying it- i dont take any **it from anyone when it comes to the second ammendment. If u know anything about history u know what it means. " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" PERIOD

And if u know anything about history u know the "militia" is every person in america. and "they can take my gun from my cold dead hand".


Dan.