|
Post by katieanna on Jun 22, 2015 16:33:56 GMT
There isn't a report in the world that has anything to do with the logic you just applied to Hillary's and SkyPea's comment. Logic went out the window on this thread after the first post. Oh, I wouldn't say that. Yes, this bothers me A LOT. It's one thing if a person sells a gun to another person, knowing that person is going to commit a crime with it. But if a homeowner has his guns locked away; someone breaks into the house and finds a way to steal the locked-away guns (there's always a way if someone wants something bad enough); and then commits a crime with the guns - to me, it's a CRIME in itself to charge the home owner or make the home owner responsible in any way. The criminal UNLAWFULLY broke into someone's home, the criminal UNLAWFULLY stole from someone, and the criminal UNLAWFULLY shot someone. NO ONE else is responsible but the criminal himself/herself. Nothing upsets me more about gun laws than the suggestion that we should charge someone who has done everything reasonably possible to protect his/her property. It's NOT the gun owner's fault if someone breaks into his home (that's trespassing on the criminal's part) and steals from him (burglary).
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 22, 2015 16:34:54 GMT
Do you really think people who own guns will stop the the US Military if the government really wanted to take over? From what I can find there approximately 34% to 43% oh households own some type of firearm. I sure those people do not have an unlimited supply of ammo as well. It would still be a bloody massacre if the government wanted to but their army in the streets as you say. The military would crush anyone they came in contact with as it is right now. Drones, tanks, missiles, and anything else a civilian would not be able to combat. I absolutely agree. It would be a bloody massacre on a proportion we would probably never recover from as a nation. I'm also not one of those who believe it is inevitable, or even likely to ever happen. I'm just showing the logical reasoning behind WHY the 2nd amendment was established, and unfortunately we have allowed our government and military to become so strong that as citizens we would be unable to stop any military or dictatorship from taking over if the scenario were to ever come about. I also believe that if that scenario were to ever play out...most people would roll over and not fight it. Regardless of the inevitable outcome. Were something like that to happen, I'd like to think I'd take the position to rather die a free man, fighting for what is right, than roll over and let the government take away those rights. But unfortunately I don't have that faith in most people choosing freedom. Yet, no one ever believed a small group of rebels could ever form an army strong enough to defeat the British Empire either...
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 22, 2015 16:49:02 GMT
Those small group of rebels had the same weapons as the British Empire back then. Civilian firearms d not match up with military firearms like they did 200+ years ago. What civilian firearm can match a M60's 500 rounds per minute? Bringing up the past is one thing but comparing the past to the present is totally different. Also, I feel there would be total chaos in the military if this were to play out. This scenario is totally not logical I feel. I think these people need to take their tin foil hats off.
How often does a civilian have to go to the range and qualify with their weapon so they can use it? If I were to buy a weapon do I ever have to go practice with it by law?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:19:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 16:54:44 GMT
Those small group of rebels had the same weapons as the British Empire back then. Civilian firearms d not match up with military firearms like they did 200+ years ago. What civilian firearm can match a M60's 500 rounds per minute? Bringing up the past is one thing but comparing the past to the present is totally different. Also, I feel there would be total chaos in the military if this were to play out. This scenario is totally not logical I feel. I think these people need to take their tin foil hats off. How often does a civilian have to go to the range and qualify with their weapon so they can use it? If I were to buy a weapon do I ever have to go practice with it by law? No no practice needed. And heck in most states no licensing or classes at all needed. That's my issue with gun laws. They are way too lax.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 22, 2015 17:05:31 GMT
That is what I thought.
I am tired of being told we need to invade the Middle East and kill all these terrorists, Muslims, and anyone else over there. I am more likely to die by an American with a gun here in the USA than some terrorist.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 22, 2015 17:29:37 GMT
Those small group of rebels had the same weapons as the British Empire back then. Civilian firearms d not match up with military firearms like they did 200+ years ago. What civilian firearm can match a M60's 500 rounds per minute? Bringing up the past is one thing but comparing the past to the present is totally different. Also, I feel there would be total chaos in the military if this were to play out. This scenario is totally not logical I feel. I think these people need to take their tin foil hats off. How often does a civilian have to go to the range and qualify with their weapon so they can use it? If I were to buy a weapon do I ever have to go practice with it by law? No, no practice needed. I personally don't own a gun, but would die for someone's right to continue to own theirs. I agree with everything you posted though, and you are right it would cause complete chaos, and while illogical in our current date and time, I am quite sure that Germans would have thought their participation in the Holocaust was seemingly illogical in the 1920s, but by the end of 1939 they were fully embedded in it. All it takes for a republic to fall into the wrong hands is the complacency of its people, and the willingness to trade liberty for security.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 22, 2015 18:26:02 GMT
Do you feel it is okay for someone to buy a firearm, never practice with it, and be able to carry it around with no training? You would die for that?
|
|
|
Post by foolana on Jun 22, 2015 19:08:03 GMT
In your opinion. Are you really daring to speak for everyone here? Your posts reek of someone who thinks they're superior to everyone here and I take offense to that. I often post JMHO in my posts and I'll assume you know what that means. If you don't like my "delivery" feel free to put me on ignore so I don't bother you anymore. I'm certainly not going to let YOU dictate what I do and say here. See that's the interesting perspective, because your posts reek the same way to me. You feel you are so superior to everyone else and you condescend anyone who disagrees with you. So I guess we see each other the exact same way....and honestly, any intelligent person doesn't need to read a JMHO to understand that a post, written by an individual, is that person's humble opinion on the matter. If you honestly need to see JMHO to get that...there might be comprehension issues. I'm not putting you on ignore. I've never put anyone, here or at the old bucket on ignore, and I will continue to comment on your posts as I see fit. Don't like it...too bad. You post that and insult my intelligence and my reading comprehension and I'M the one who's condescending? Holy cow. The only time people respond the way you respond to me is because THEY feel inferior. I don't give a darn what you think of me or what I say but apparently I REALLY bother you. It's so funny to see all your insecurities turned back onto me.
You're becoming just another skypea and lynlam to me; just typing to hear themselves yap. I won't argue with you any more because frankly, you're no challenge to me.
JMHO, of course.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 22, 2015 19:15:21 GMT
Do you really think people who own guns will stop the the US Military if the government really wanted to take over? From what I can find there approximately 34% to 43% oh households own some type of firearm. I sure those people do not have an unlimited supply of ammo as well. It would still be a bloody massacre if the government wanted to but their army in the streets as you say. The military would crush anyone they came in contact with as it is right now. Drones, tanks, missiles, and anything else a civilian would not be able to combat. Hey now, I've seen Red Dawn. Patrick Swayze and a handful of teenagers with guns can take down the Russian Army I've also see the Walking Dead. I'm gonna shoot some Walkers I don't in any reality think that if the US military wanted to take over that people with guns would win, but I would damn sure protect my family and my friends and neighbors if some rogue faction came at us. I don't own guns for protection against the government, but I am not a nutter either.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 22, 2015 19:18:51 GMT
Those small group of rebels had the same weapons as the British Empire back then. Civilian firearms d not match up with military firearms like they did 200+ years ago. What civilian firearm can match a M60's 500 rounds per minute? Bringing up the past is one thing but comparing the past to the present is totally different. Also, I feel there would be total chaos in the military if this were to play out. This scenario is totally not logical I feel. I think these people need to take their tin foil hats off. How often does a civilian have to go to the range and qualify with their weapon so they can use it? If I were to buy a weapon do I ever have to go practice with it by law? No no practice needed. And heck in most states no licensing or classes at all needed. That's my issue with gun laws. They are way too lax. So if I could prove I can shoot and that I know how to store my weapon safely, that would suffice?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:19:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 20:16:37 GMT
No no practice needed. And heck in most states no licensing or classes at all needed. That's my issue with gun laws. They are way too lax. So if I could prove I can shoot and that I know how to store my weapon safely, that would suffice? I didn't say that. But I think it should be part of it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:19:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 22, 2015 23:00:57 GMT
I hadn't responded to @lynlam's dissertation about the National Data Base. I actually got the idea reading about Fast & Furious. Not the movie.
If an AFT agents wants to track a gun they have to visit each gun dealer individually. That would only apply to guns purchased in gun store. It would not include guns sold at gun shows or in private sales. So it makes sense that the age pants should be able put in a serial number of a gun and get its history. And since guns don't always stay in the same area it makes sense to have the data base. In order for it to be effective it needs to be up dated because not all guns stay with the original owner.
Another reason I think a National Data base would be a good idea is maybe it would make some "responsible" gun owners actually a responsible gun owner if they were actually held accountable for their actions and the actions of their guns. It never ceases to amaze me how many "responsible " gun owners treat their guns with such a lackadaisical attitude. It was suggested that the problem of too many guns would be helped if there were less illegal guns. I agree but where do illegal guns come from? Most started their life as legal guns and ended up as illegal guns. Maybe if there is a National Data Base with teeth less legal guns (sold in private sales or gun shows or purchased by a third party) will become illegal guns. Just a thought.
In my data base if the gun is stolen and used in a crime I don't think the last owner should be considered an accessory as long as the owner notifies the data base when it's stolen. I read where not all guns that are stolen are reported to the police. Why I don't understand.
As to safety classes that is a no brainier. Why wouldn't you want to learn how to use a gun safely? And do it every 5 years shouldn't be a problem. Tactics change over time and maybe one would learn something new.
So what if one has to register their gun in a National Data Base if the end result would make some gun owners more responsible, keep the guns out hands who shouldn't have them, and keep some guns off the street.
By the way. It goes without saying that before any gun is sold a background check is a must. No more loopholes such as private sales and gun shows.
People have argued the 2nd amendment gives people the right to own guns . But in spite of what the NRA wants you to believe it does not give you the right to be irresponsible without repercussions with the guns.
Last week the Supreme Court declined to hear the case involving the NRA and the City of San Francisco. After Sandy Hook San Francisco passed two laws. One all guns are to be kept locked up in a gun safe when they are in your premises or have a trigger lock. The other law banned the sale of hollow point bullets. The NRA sued to stop these laws from taking affect. The courts and appeals court ruled in favor of San Francisco. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case which means the San Francisco laws can be enforced.
|
|
|
Post by marykate on Jun 22, 2015 23:07:10 GMT
My thing is: the Second Amendment, as conceived, written, and enacted by the Founding Fathers, was about the right of each state to establish and maintain its own militia. Muster up, boys!
It was not about the right of every Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry a semi-automatic, or perhaps to launch his own nuclear warhead, because those weapons had not yet been invented, and no sane person (and the American Founders, for all their faults, were nothing if not sane and rational) would agree to such a crazy scheme.
I think every American citizen should be entitled to carry an 18th-century musket. In keeping with the traditions of the Founding Fathers, and in strict conformity to both the spirit and the letter of the law of the Second Amendment.
All else is madness, imo.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 22, 2015 23:13:29 GMT
I am with scrappower on this one. Police officers, military members, government employees that need to carry, and so forth need to be trained to use their weapon by going to the range and qualifying. Even them who go to the range under stressful circumstances miss quite a bit. Yet we allow the average person to buy a firearm and never have to train with it and saying the phrase I have it for self defense. That makes total sense to me. Just because someone back in 1791 said: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Doesn't mean you shouldn't have to be trained on your weapons. You have a responsibility to be able to use your weapon. You should have to qualify every so often. Don't use the self defense card if you aren't practicing with your firearm.
Something that has the power to kill someone so easily now should have some type of requirements to be able to use the firearm.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:19:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 0:58:25 GMT
My thing is: the Second Amendment, as conceived, written, and enacted by the Founding Fathers, was about the right of each state to establish and maintain its own militia. Muster up, boys! It was not about the right of every Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry a semi-automatic, or perhaps to launch his own nuclear warhead, because those weapons had not yet been invented, and no sane person (and the American Founders, for all their faults, were nothing if not sane and rational) would agree to such a crazy scheme. I think every American citizen should be entitled to carry an 18th-century musket. In keeping with the traditions of the Founding Fathers, and in strict conformity to both the spirit and the letter of the law of the Second Amendment. All else is madness, imo. Rights don't change because technology advances. If the first amendment applies to TV, radio and the internet, then the 2nd still applies to technological advances in guns.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2015 1:35:15 GMT
TVs, radios, and the internet do not kill people or make it easier to kill people. Technological advances in guns does. Back in 1791 they could fire approx 3 bullets a minute if they were good. How man bullets can one shoot per minute now. I would say there is a huge difference between the two.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:19:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 1:43:48 GMT
TVs, radios, and the internet do not kill people or make it easier to kill people. Technological advances in guns does. Back in 1791 they could fire approx 3 bullets a minute if they were good. How man bullets can one shoot per minute now. I would say there is a huge difference between the two. The bullets used in 1791 were deadly back then too. Rights do not change because technology advances. No matter how you word it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:19:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 1:54:47 GMT
TVs, radios, and the internet do not kill people or make it easier to kill people. Technological advances in guns does. Back in 1791 they could fire approx 3 bullets a minute if they were good. How man bullets can one shoot per minute now. I would say there is a huge difference between the two. The internet most certainly does make it easier to kill people what with all the info out there on how to make any number of deadly weapons and the relative ease with which you can purchase certain items. Radio communication has been making the killing of people easier for decades now. Cell phones can be used at detonators. TV shows us daily how to (or not to, as the case may be) kill people. The 2nd amendment applies to our weaponry of today. You may not like it, but unless and until the SCOTUS determines that it doesn't, it does.
|
|
|
Post by traceys on Jun 23, 2015 9:44:33 GMT
My thing is: the Second Amendment, as conceived, written, and enacted by the Founding Fathers, was about the right of each state to establish and maintain its own militia. Muster up, boys! This issue has already been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. The Second Amendment is an individual right....not a state right.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 14:07:07 GMT
I guess I don't really understand opposition to gun registration on grounds that the govt will try to take away everyone's guns. You have to register with a state agency in order to drive a car (driver's license), after all, and then you also have to license and register your car (vehicle registration). Why aren't people up in arms, so to speak, about driver and automobile registration? (and yes, there are databases: if you ever get stopped by police for even a minor infraction, they will run those numbers faster than you can open the glove compartment to search for your papers). Why do we never hear overheated rhetoric about how the govt is coming to take away our cars? And for those who oppose gun registration: are you willing to apply that same principle to driver and automobile registration? Personally automobile registration is a money making scam. Driver's licenses are one thing, but having to register your car...it's just another hidden tax turning government into revenue makers. Also the reason we have quotas for tickets in the police station, instead of using those invaluable resources for other things than sitting behind bushes on the side of a highway.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 14:09:13 GMT
Do you feel it is okay for someone to buy a firearm, never practice with it, and be able to carry it around with no training? You would die for that? Yes...
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 14:14:12 GMT
As to safety classes that is a no brainier. Why wouldn't you want to learn how to use a gun safely? And do it every 5 years shouldn't be a problem. Tactics change over time and maybe one would learn something new. Except look at it from a personal liberty standpoint...This is a large government entity...telling you, once again, it knows better as a collective what is good for you and what you need than you do as an individual. That is how many if not most gun rights advocates see it. Any time the government says...we know better than you...it's a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 14:18:18 GMT
My thing is: the Second Amendment, as conceived, written, and enacted by the Founding Fathers, was about the right of each state to establish and maintain its own militia. Muster up, boys! It was not about the right of every Tom, Dick, and Harry to carry a semi-automatic, or perhaps to launch his own nuclear warhead, because those weapons had not yet been invented, and no sane person (and the American Founders, for all their faults, were nothing if not sane and rational) would agree to such a crazy scheme. I think every American citizen should be entitled to carry an 18th-century musket. In keeping with the traditions of the Founding Fathers, and in strict conformity to both the spirit and the letter of the law of the Second Amendment. All else is madness, imo. Actually you are wrong...The clause referring to the militia was written as an example of a reason, not THE reason. Any research of the writing style at the time, or even the other amendments shows that the right of a person to bear arms stands alone from the militia statement. And regardless of what you think, the Constitution, is as applicable to the day and time in which we live as it was to those who wrote it. It was written with the understanding that industrialization and technology would take place. That doesn't change the rights of the government...And before someone says...what about a nuclear bomb...the nuclear bomb is an example of a government becoming to big and too powerful.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2015 14:46:48 GMT
Really so gun safety and qualifications are a bad thing? I mean you can buy something that can kill so easily yet never learn how to use it properly? That doesn't make sense to me. Why is qualifying with a gun a bad thing?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:19:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 14:49:12 GMT
As to safety classes that is a no brainier. Why wouldn't you want to learn how to use a gun safely? And do it every 5 years shouldn't be a problem. Tactics change over time and maybe one would learn something new. Except look at it from a personal liberty standpoint...This is a large government entity...telling you, once again, it knows better as a collective what is good for you and what you need than you do as an individual. That is how many if not most gun rights advocates see it. Any time the government says...we know better than you...it's a bad thing. No it isn't. This is common sense.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 14:54:40 GMT
Except look at it from a personal liberty standpoint...This is a large government entity...telling you, once again, it knows better as a collective what is good for you and what you need than you do as an individual. That is how many if not most gun rights advocates see it. Any time the government says...we know better than you...it's a bad thing. No it isn't. This is common sense. To you it is common sense. Having grown up around guns, my nephews have both had 12 gauge shotguns since they were 5 or 6 years old, and my 11 year old nephew has had a compound bow for a couple years at least, and they have been hunting with my brother and his father in law on many occasions. They are in many ways more careful with their weapons than the adults, but they weren't trained at a gun range, they were home trained, as have been generations before them. George Washington didn't take gun safety training. Teddy Roosevelt didn't either. I'm not opposed to providing them, I'm opposed to requiring them. Much like the TSA it is simply safety theater for those who are afraid of guns.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:19:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 14:58:51 GMT
No it isn't. This is common sense. To you it is common sense. Having grown up around guns, my nephews have both had 12 gauge shotguns since they were 5 or 6 years old, and my 11 year old nephew has had a compound bow for a couple years at least, and they have been hunting with my brother and his father in law on many occasions. They are in many ways more careful with their weapons than the adults, but they weren't trained at a gun range, they were home trained, as have been generations before them. George Washington didn't take gun safety training. Teddy Roosevelt didn't either. I'm not opposed to providing them, I'm opposed to requiring them. Much like the TSA it is simply safety theater for those who are afraid of guns. It is not safety theater. If someone wants to responsibly own a firearm they need to be educated to protect the public. Just because your nephews were trained does not mean people as a whole are. It's utterly ridiculous to be against safety training on firearms. The fact is that those with guns are much more likely to be injured by those guns. That speaks volumes.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2015 15:00:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 15:08:46 GMT
To you it is common sense. Having grown up around guns, my nephews have both had 12 gauge shotguns since they were 5 or 6 years old, and my 11 year old nephew has had a compound bow for a couple years at least, and they have been hunting with my brother and his father in law on many occasions. They are in many ways more careful with their weapons than the adults, but they weren't trained at a gun range, they were home trained, as have been generations before them. George Washington didn't take gun safety training. Teddy Roosevelt didn't either. I'm not opposed to providing them, I'm opposed to requiring them. Much like the TSA it is simply safety theater for those who are afraid of guns. It is not safety theater. If someone wants to responsibly own a firearm they need to be educated to protect the public. Just because your nephews were trained does not mean people as a whole are. It's utterly ridiculous to be against safety training on firearms. The fact is that those with guns are much more likely to be injured by those guns. That speaks volumes. This is one of those instances where we will have to agree to disagree agreeably. Since the invention of the gun, people have been using them without government regulated approved training programs. In terms of speaking volumes, these are the two equations: People + Guns = Higher percentage of gun related injuries. People - Guns = Lower percentage of gun related injuries. Why? Simply because people without guns...don't have guns around them to cause potential injury. Statistics can be read and manipulated to prove any position. The problem isn't the guns, the problem is why the last generation is the first generation to be psychologically more capable of mass carnage than previous generations. That isn't due to the weapon of choice, that is solely to blame on the society they are being raised in.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:19:26 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 15:23:40 GMT
As to safety classes that is a no brainier. Why wouldn't you want to learn how to use a gun safely? And do it every 5 years shouldn't be a problem. Tactics change over time and maybe one would learn something new. Except look at it from a personal liberty standpoint...This is a large government entity...telling you, once again, it knows better as a collective what is good for you and what you need than you do as an individual. That is how many if not most gun rights advocates see it. Any time the government says...we know better than you...it's a bad thing. IMO you really need to stop looking at government as some big bad monster that won't let you play like you want. Before I retired I worked in commercial insurance. As such I was licensed by the state. My license renewed every two years. One of the requirements for renewing my license was to get 25 units of continuing education credits. I always learned something new that helped me do my job better. Would I have taken classes on my own? Maybe but I doubt it. Too busy. But when you have to do it you make the time. If you want to own a gun then you need to be licensed and take gun safety classes on a regular basis. You know why? Because one might just learn something they didn't know that could prevent an accident with the end result of someone getting killed. What do you think the chances are that gun owners would take safety classes on their own if not required? What is pathetic is that one would be REQUIRED to take gun safety classes.
|
|