Political Crossfire Forums

Sallyyyy · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 7 Location: NH

I just joined up on the boards, and I was scanning some recent posts in this forum... seems like almost everyone is against gun control.

A couple questions:

Is anyone FOR PARTIAL gun control?
Is anyone for COMPLETE gun control?
Setting aside logistics (please no "gun control doesn't work." responses), are you for or against gun control on principle?
If you are AGAINST gun control, is it because of the second amendment?

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 10973 Location: Podunk, Colorado

I am against gun control because A. it only disarms the law abiding and B. gun control is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

There's people who have absolutely no problem with partial, heavy, or total gun control, but those same people would be extremely angry Americans if speech was regulated like that.

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

I'm for very limited gun control.

ShirzadianM · Joined: 27 Jun 2006 Posts: 140 Location: Ohio

Onevote wrote: I'm for very limited gun control.

And where, might I ask, do you place these limitations on gun control?

thintheherd

Sallyyyy wrote: I just joined up on the boards, and I was scanning some recent posts in this forum... seems like almost everyone is against gun control.

A couple questions:

Is anyone FOR PARTIAL gun control?
Is anyone for COMPLETE gun control?
Setting aside logistics (please no "gun control doesn't work." responses), are you for or against gun control on principle?
If you are AGAINST gun control, is it because of the second amendment?
Sallyyyy wrote: If you are AGAINST gun control, is it because of the second amendment?
Yes... and, of course, the rationale behind it.

The logic behind the 2nd amendment is infallible IMO. It embodies more forethought than any piece of legislation that's come down the pike in over 200 years.

I defy anyone to discount that assesment.

Sallyyyy · Joined: 01 Jul 2006 Posts: 7 Location: NH

thintheherd wrote: Sallyyyy wrote: I just joined up on the boards, and I was scanning some recent posts in this forum... seems like almost everyone is against gun control.

A couple questions:

Is anyone FOR PARTIAL gun control?
Is anyone for COMPLETE gun control?
Setting aside logistics (please no "gun control doesn't work." responses), are you for or against gun control on principle?
If you are AGAINST gun control, is it because of the second amendment?
Sallyyyy wrote: If you are AGAINST gun control, is it because of the second amendment?
Yes... and, of course, the rationale behind it.

The logic behind the 2nd amendment is infallible IMO. It embodies more forethought than any piece of legislation that's come down the pike in over 200 years.

I defy anyone to discount that assesment.

Elaborate please.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2522

Wolverine wrote: I am against gun control because A. it only disarms the law abiding and B. gun control is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

There's people who have absolutely no problem with partial, heavy, or total gun control, but those same people would be extremely angry Americans if speech was regulated like that.

I am for gun control. My government is also for gun control, yet I live in a country with freedom of speech. The two are not necessarily inexorably linked. Of course, the gun-nuts around here will claim that even though it hasn't happened yet, give it time - all citizens of countries with gun control will be living in police states sooner or later. They have even tried to cite the novel, 1984, as 'evidence' of this inevidable decline.
They will try to claim that guns are the 'teeth' that protect the other rights and that without the 'teeth', the other rights are there for the taking (or eroding in this case). Tell that to Gandhi.
The truth is that there are many ways to keep one's government in check that don't involve a bunch of farmers kicking down the doors of the whitehouse and pointing their winchesters at the president.

Hi Sallyyyy. There are a few folk for gun contol here - myself, Lucky Luke, Ssushi, and Stix.

RooK · Joined: 16 Jul 2004 Posts: 2006 Location: SE Kentucky

Sallyyyy wrote: I just joined up on the boards, and I was scanning some recent posts in this forum... seems like almost everyone is against gun control.

A couple questions:

Is anyone FOR PARTIAL gun control?
Is anyone for COMPLETE gun control?
Setting aside logistics (please no "gun control doesn't work." responses), are you for or against gun control on principle?
If you are AGAINST gun control, is it because of the second amendment?

Partial... sure, instant background check and felony restrictions are fine. Abuse a right, you lose it.

Complete? No.

Gun control is about having power to defend yourself and control over your life; independence from other people and entities. This is why it is one of the most important of all right granted by God or nature to human beings. It should not be violated on that principle, surrendering you to those that can hold sway over your life. The Second Amendment is acknowledgment of this.

Not only that, but the firearm industry is one of the few American products still made in the US and giving millions of Americans jobs. Not only does an gun control agenda involve shutting down factories and removing these jobs, but you also lose all the business involved in accessorizing and customizing them. People in every town of the US will be unemployed in some way or form due to it. LEO and Mil sales cannot sustain what the civilian market does.

Our military will also suffer from lack of adequate advancements in their equipment. One of the nice thinks about civilians being able to own M16/AR15 rifles is accessories made for us retrofit onto their rifles and lead to fewer of our soldiers being killed due to these advancements tested in the market place first: better sights, accessory rails, etc.

Something else interesting to look at is the lack of advancement in firearm design since the '80s, when civilian machingun ownership was practically destroyed because civilians could design/create new machineguns. This practically destroyed any chance of newer firearm designs because tinkerers and inventors were prohibited from testing new designs. That is just about how all previous designs through history were made, like John Browning and Eugene Stoner.

Sorry for the long rant, but in close: Your violating our rights, destroying US jobs/income, and possibly hindering our own advancements in new technology that could assist soldiers in war.

thintheherd

Sallyyyy wrote: thintheherd wrote: Sallyyyy wrote: I just joined up on the boards, and I was scanning some recent posts in this forum... seems like almost everyone is against gun control.

A couple questions:

Is anyone FOR PARTIAL gun control?
Is anyone for COMPLETE gun control?
Setting aside logistics (please no "gun control doesn't work." responses), are you for or against gun control on principle?
If you are AGAINST gun control, is it because of the second amendment?
Sallyyyy wrote: If you are AGAINST gun control, is it because of the second amendment?
Yes... and, of course, the rationale behind it.

The logic behind the 2nd amendment is infallible IMO. It embodies more forethought than any piece of legislation that's come down the pike in over 200 years.

I defy anyone to discount that assesment.

Elaborate please.
Didn't I already? What more do you need?

Aqualung · Joined: 03 Jun 2006 Posts: 2260 Location: Washington

Lucky Luke is pro gun control...

I think Blinky is, too. Those are the only ones I think of off the top of my head.

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

ShirzadianM wrote: Onevote wrote: I'm for very limited gun control.

And where, might I ask, do you place these limitations on gun control? Handguns for minors. Convited firearm related fellons. and anyone who has been found to be mentaly incompetent by a court.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2522

Onevote wrote: ShirzadianM wrote: Onevote wrote: I'm for very limited gun control.

And where, might I ask, do you place these limitations on gun control? Handguns for minors. Convited firearm related fellons. and anyone who has been found to be mentaly incompetent by a court.

You should have to prove mental competence BEFORE aquiring a firearm, IMO. Just like you have to pass a driving test before you get your licence.

Just because you havn't been shown mentally incompetent by a court YET, doesn't mean that you aren't! :wink:

RooK · Joined: 16 Jul 2004 Posts: 2006 Location: SE Kentucky

Blinky wrote: You should have to prove mental competence BEFORE aquiring a firearm, IMO. Just like you have to pass a driving test before you get your licence.

You know that is not an equal equation right? You have to pass a driving test before you can get a license to drive a car on public roads. You do not need a license or pass any tests in order to purchase or drive a car on private property. Federal emissions and saftey standards do not apply to cars not driven on the road.

So, from this equation, you should have to pass a test and get a license before you can carry a gun in public or hunt on public land. Seems that is already taken care of by Hunter Education certification courses (I can't buy a hunting license without one) and CCW licenses.

Am I right?

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 10973 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: I am against gun control because A. it only disarms the law abiding and B. gun control is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

There's people who have absolutely no problem with partial, heavy, or total gun control, but those same people would be extremely angry Americans if speech was regulated like that.

I am for gun control. My government is also for gun control, yet I live in a country with freedom of speech. The two are not necessarily inexorably linked. Of course, the gun-nuts around here will claim that even though it hasn't happened yet, give it time - all citizens of countries with gun control will be living in police states sooner or later. They have even tried to cite the novel, 1984, as 'evidence' of this inevidable decline.
They will try to claim that guns are the 'teeth' that protect the other rights and that without the 'teeth', the other rights are there for the taking (or eroding in this case). Tell that to Gandhi.
The truth is that there are many ways to keep one's government in check that don't involve a bunch of farmers kicking down the doors of the whitehouse and pointing their winchesters at the president.

Hi Sallyyyy. There are a few folk for gun contol here - myself, Lucky Luke, Ssushi, and Stix.
But was gun ownership a right in Australia?

Two different worlds bud, here those who support the 1st and hate the 2nd are hypocrites.

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: ShirzadianM wrote: Onevote wrote: I'm for very limited gun control.

And where, might I ask, do you place these limitations on gun control? Handguns for minors. Convited firearm related fellons. and anyone who has been found to be mentaly incompetent by a court.

You should have to prove mental competence BEFORE aquiring a firearm, IMO. Just like you have to pass a driving test before you get your licence.

Just because you havn't been shown mentally incompetent by a court YET, doesn't mean that you aren't! :wink: Great thing you don't make the laws! Why should you have to prove that you are mentally fit? Do you automatically assume everyone is not?

A driver test is a bit different. by asking for a license you are asking to drive your car on public roads. A test to ensure you are qualified is not unreasonable. Owning a firearm doesn't mean that you ever intend to interact with the public while carrying it. To do that in this state, you must get a CCW, Which requires a class and test thereafter. similar to a driver test. Neither require a psychological evaluation, nor should they!

Jefferson · Joined: 03 Mar 2005 Posts: 3176

Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: I am against gun control because A. it only disarms the law abiding and B. gun control is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

There's people who have absolutely no problem with partial, heavy, or total gun control, but those same people would be extremely angry Americans if speech was regulated like that.

I am for gun control. My government is also for gun control, yet I live in a country with freedom of speech. The two are not necessarily inexorably linked. Of course, the gun-nuts around here will claim that even though it hasn't happened yet, give it time - all citizens of countries with gun control will be living in police states sooner or later. They have even tried to cite the novel, 1984, as 'evidence' of this inevidable decline.
They will try to claim that guns are the 'teeth' that protect the other rights and that without the 'teeth', the other rights are there for the taking (or eroding in this case). Tell that to Gandhi.
The truth is that there are many ways to keep one's government in check that don't involve a bunch of farmers kicking down the doors of the whitehouse and pointing their winchesters at the president.

Hi Sallyyyy. There are a few folk for gun contol here - myself, Lucky Luke, Ssushi, and Stix.

Gandhi?

Forget that crap. He got democracy by getting people's heads bashed in.

I'm going to hide behind a tree, shoot the enemies of democray, then go home and fix a ham sandwich.

While your method gets your head bashed in and crippled forever, my methods keeps my brains intact. Feel free to use your method of course, the guys who hid behind trees will thank you by building a statue of you in thanks, while you eat baby food for the rest of your life as a cripple.

Onevote · Joined: 18 Sep 2004 Posts: 1688 Location: Tampa, Florida

Jefferson wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: I am against gun control because A. it only disarms the law abiding and B. gun control is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

There's people who have absolutely no problem with partial, heavy, or total gun control, but those same people would be extremely angry Americans if speech was regulated like that.

I am for gun control. My government is also for gun control, yet I live in a country with freedom of speech. The two are not necessarily inexorably linked. Of course, the gun-nuts around here will claim that even though it hasn't happened yet, give it time - all citizens of countries with gun control will be living in police states sooner or later. They have even tried to cite the novel, 1984, as 'evidence' of this inevidable decline.
They will try to claim that guns are the 'teeth' that protect the other rights and that without the 'teeth', the other rights are there for the taking (or eroding in this case). Tell that to Gandhi.
The truth is that there are many ways to keep one's government in check that don't involve a bunch of farmers kicking down the doors of the whitehouse and pointing their winchesters at the president.

Hi Sallyyyy. There are a few folk for gun contol here - myself, Lucky Luke, Ssushi, and Stix.

Gandhi?

Forget that crap. He got democracy by getting people's heads bashed in.

I'm going to hide behind a tree, shoot the enemies of democray, then go home and fix a ham sandwich.

While your method gets your head bashed in and crippled forever, my methods keeps my brains intact. Feel free to use your method of course, the guys who hid behind trees will thank you by building a statue of you in thanks, while you eat baby food for the rest of your life as a cripple. No errant shots please! I'll be in the tree next to you.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2522

RooK wrote: Blinky wrote: You should have to prove mental competence BEFORE aquiring a firearm, IMO. Just like you have to pass a driving test before you get your licence.

You know that is not an equal equation right? You have to pass a driving test before you can get a license to drive a car on public roads. You do not need a license or pass any tests in order to purchase or drive a car on private property. Federal emissions and saftey standards do not apply to cars not driven on the road.

Sorry. I wasn't aware that the 2nd amendment only gave citizens the right to "bear arms in their own backyard and nowhere else".
Yes. I think you should pass a test before you carry a gun in public. Never mind hunting.
You wish to drive a car anywhere public, you need to get a licence becasuse improper use of that car could result in someone else getting hurt.
You carry a gun around in public, improper use can result in someone else getting very very hurt. So hurt that they will die, in fact.

Further, in most situations it's easier to hurt others (and more of them) with a gun than a car. I wouldn't want someone "mentally incompetent" behind the wheel of a car (which the driver's licence test ensures). But I definately don't want someone mentally incompetent getting their hands on a firearm either.

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2522

Wolverine wrote: Blinky wrote: Wolverine wrote: I am against gun control because A. it only disarms the law abiding and B. gun control is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

There's people who have absolutely no problem with partial, heavy, or total gun control, but those same people would be extremely angry Americans if speech was regulated like that.

I am for gun control. My government is also for gun control, yet I live in a country with freedom of speech. The two are not necessarily inexorably linked. Of course, the gun-nuts around here will claim that even though it hasn't happened yet, give it time - all citizens of countries with gun control will be living in police states sooner or later. They have even tried to cite the novel, 1984, as 'evidence' of this inevidable decline.
They will try to claim that guns are the 'teeth' that protect the other rights and that without the 'teeth', the other rights are there for the taking (or eroding in this case). Tell that to Gandhi.
The truth is that there are many ways to keep one's government in check that don't involve a bunch of farmers kicking down the doors of the whitehouse and pointing their winchesters at the president.

Hi Sallyyyy. There are a few folk for gun contol here - myself, Lucky Luke, Ssushi, and Stix.
But was gun ownership a right in Australia?

Two different worlds bud, here those who support the 1st and hate the 2nd are hypocrites.

How so?

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2522

Onevote wrote: Blinky wrote: Onevote wrote: ShirzadianM wrote: Onevote wrote: I'm for very limited gun control.

And where, might I ask, do you place these limitations on gun control? Handguns for minors. Convited firearm related fellons. and anyone who has been found to be mentaly incompetent by a court.

You should have to prove mental competence BEFORE aquiring a firearm, IMO. Just like you have to pass a driving test before you get your licence.

Just because you havn't been shown mentally incompetent by a court YET, doesn't mean that you aren't! :wink: Great thing you don't make the laws! Why should you have to prove that you are mentally fit? Do you automatically assume everyone is not?

A driver test is a bit different. by asking for a license you are asking to drive your car on public roads. A test to ensure you are qualified is not unreasonable. Owning a firearm doesn't mean that you ever intend to interact with the public while carrying it. To do that in this state, you must get a CCW, Which requires a class and test thereafter. similar to a driver test. Neither require a psychological evaluation, nor should they!

Lack of psychological evaluation can result in atrocities like the Columbine HS massacre.