Political Crossfire Forums

[Wolverine]

What I find ironic is that gun control advocates often call themselves liberals (they actually misuse the word), but gun control is a restriction of liberty. Many liberals are anti-large government, they protest the Patriot Act, War in Iraq, NSA spying, Bush's treason, but they fail to note the errors in their ways when they promote gun control, which is an infringement on our rights.

1) Registration is an infringement on liberty, if the government knows what you have it knows what it can take.

2) Restrictions are infringements on our rights to choose what we feel is the best weapon to defend ourselves with.

3) Bans are an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, as well as a violation of privacy and property rights.

4) Bans or restricting on concealed or open carry infringe on the rights of those who wish to defend themselves as any given moment.

5) Anti-gunners only feel safe when in the presence of other anti's. They fear anyone with a gun, and the guns themselves. They are intentional infringing on their own liberty when they fear that anyone will kill them.

6) Anti-gunners have limited liberty when it comes to defending their homes and property. The bad guy has a gun, they have a baseball bat. A pro-gunner has the ability to defend his/her loved ones and property without the need to be face to face with the criminal while attempting to subdue the criminal with melee style attacks.
They feel helpless, and they want everyone else to be helpless too.

7) Anti-gunners basically endanger the well being of their family by not choosing to own a gun.
They fear inanimate objects (hoplophobia), and they want everyone else to fear inanimate objects too.


Anti-gunners, please do not advocate that you are liberals, advocating excessive government is hardly liberal. Expecting everyone to think and act exactly like you is hardly liberal. you endanger your life as well as those around you. You also advocate the misuse and oppression of excessive government, as long as it doesn't effect you. Which of course, is hypocritical.

Being aggressively anti-gun restricts the freedom of you yourself and those around you. There's only one great way to be anti-gun, do by yourself, instead of expecting every other person to live and defend themselves exactly like you.
If you want to be defenseless, do by yourself, please do not drag everyone else kicking and screaming into a Utopian dream.

[NovaPacifica]

Wolverine wrote:
1) Registration is an infringement on liberty, if the government knows what you have it knows what it can take.


- The government can also look up your credit card records and see what you have bought, unless you go as far as paying everything with cash. Same with registering a car, pretty much according to that they infringe on lots of stuff.

Wolverine wrote:
2) Restrictions are infringements on our rights to choose what we feel is the best weapon to defend ourselves with.


- True, but people do overdo it if we had the right to choose what weapon we wanted.

Wolverine wrote:
3) Bans are an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, as well as a violation of privacy and property rights.


- True, but how far can privacy go? I mean just a general question, you are right it does infringe on our rights but if we did not have any bans .. would we be in a better state?

Wolverine wrote:
4) Bans or restricting on concealed or open carry infringe on the rights of those who wish to defend themselves as any given moment.


- I understand the ban on concealing weapons, it is not only for protection of our self but also the officers. Also if you have the weapon in visible range , then you might be able to avoid a argument since the other guy would know better ... but that can also backfire. It is a iffy subject since both sides have its pros and cons. Also I believe the biggest defense is common sense. No need to conceal that...

Wolverine wrote:
5) Anti-gunners only feel safe when in the presence of other anti's. They fear anyone with a gun, and the guns themselves. They are intentional infringing on their own liberty when they fear that anyone will kill them.


- Not sure how to reply on that one...

Wolverine wrote:
6) Anti-gunners have limited liberty when it comes to defending their homes and property. The bad guy has a gun, they have a baseball bat. A pro-gunner has the ability to defend his/her loved ones and property without the need to be face to face with the criminal while attempting to subdue the criminal with melee style attacks.
They feel helpless, and they want everyone else to be helpless too.


- Very good point, in my opinion having a gun at your home should be perfectly legal, you have every right to defend yourself on your own property. But yet people need to be responsible with the whole deal of having a weapon.

Wolverine wrote:
7) Anti-gunners basically endanger the well being of their family by not choosing to own a gun.
They fear inanimate objects (hoplophobia), and they want everyone else to fear inanimate objects too.


- Depends, we do not carry a gun at our house but we do have our own ways of protecting each other. Also instant silent alarm is the way to go ... but then again not everyone has a alarm system.

~

Nice ideas, I just replied with my opinion .. not really for or against gun control, got to think more about the whole issue.

[Wolverine]

NovaPacifica wrote:
- The government can also look up your credit card records and see what you have bought, unless you go as far as paying everything with cash. Same with registering a car, pretty much according to that they infringe on lots of stuff.
Thats true, but I do not think the government has the right to monitor your financial transitions.

No one has a right to use a car on public property, so the government has the ability to register and regulated cars.

Quote:
- True, but people do overdo it if we had the right to choose what weapon we wanted.
People already have the right to choose the weapon that fits them best, and not many "over do it".

Quote:
- True, but how far can privacy go?
If what you are doing does not, directly, negatively effect others, then the government has no business knowing what it is.

Quote: I mean just a general question, you are right it does infringe on our rights but if we did not have any bans .. would we be in a better state?
The bans we have are worthless.

1934 NFA - Banned MG's, SBR's, SBS's, and explosives, merely because a few gangsters used the Thombson. Even to this day, only two people have been killed with legal machine guns.

1986 NFA - Banned post 1986 MG's, a direct infringement on peoples rights. Not only did it drive the price of an MG from a thousandish to $15K, but it completely bans civilians from owning certain post-86' MG's, like the H&K G36.

1989 Import Ban - Banned imported semi-automatic "assault weapons" without the correct number of compliance parts. Not only is the law worthless (importers install compliance parts), but it effects the consumer. I can't install a genuine Spanish flash suppressor on my CETME, the cheapest route is a FS that complies with the 89' import ban.

1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" - Banned all "assault weapons". The ban didn't have much of an impact, "assault weapons" are only used in about 2% of all gun crimes.

Bans don't work, criminals get what they need.

Quote:
- I understand the ban on concealing weapons, it is not only for protection of our self but also the officers. Also if you have the weapon in visible range , then you might be able to avoid a argument since the other guy would know better ... but that can also backfire. It is a iffy subject since both sides have its pros and cons. Also I believe the biggest defense is common sense. No need to conceal that...
Do you honestly think a piece of paper is going to stop someone from carrying concealed weapons?

Do you think that anyone with a concealed weapon has malicious intent?


Quote:
- Very good point, in my opinion having a gun at your home should be perfectly legal, you have every right to defend yourself on your own property. But yet people need to be responsible with the whole deal of having a weapon.
Many gun owners are responsible, there's one hundred millionish gun owners in America, there's only about 760 fatal gun related accidents per year.

Quote:
- Depends, we do not carry a gun at our house but we do have our own ways of protecting each other. Also instant silent alarm is the way to go ... but then again not everyone has a alarm system.
An alarm system is a great idea, but many people cannot afford one, so a 12ga. shotgun is the best #2 option.

Quote:
Nice ideas, I just replied with my opinion .. not really for or against gun control, got to think more about the whole issue.
Its good to see a new poster in these parts. :wink:

[NovaPacifica]

Wolverine wrote: No one has a right to use a car on public property, so the government has the ability to register and regulated cars.


Yet it is sad that car crashes kill more innocent lifes then gun shootings.

Wolverine wrote: People already have the right to choose the weapon that fits them best, and not many "over do it".

Ahh, my misunderstanding on that part then.

Wolverine wrote: If what you are doing does not, directly, negatively effect others, then the government has no business knowing what it is.

But how can the government prevent something that is first non-negatively and then turns negatively before it is to late?

Wolverine wrote: The bans we have are worthless.

1934 NFA - Banned MG's, SBR's, SBS's, and explosives, merely because a few gangsters used the Thombson. Even to this day, only two people have been killed with legal machine guns.

1986 NFA - Banned post 1986 MG's, a direct infringement on peoples rights. Not only did it drive the price of an MG from a thousandish to $15K, but it completely bans civilians from owning certain post-86' MG's, like the H&K G36.

1989 Import Ban - Banned imported semi-automatic "assault weapons" without the correct number of compliance parts. Not only is the law worthless (importers install compliance parts), but it effects the consumer. I can't install a genuine Spanish flash suppressor on my CETME, the cheapest route is a FS that complies with the 89' import ban.

1994 "Assault Weapons Ban" - Banned all "assault weapons". The ban didn't have much of an impact, "assault weapons" are only used in about 2% of all gun crimes.

Bans don't work, criminals get what they need.

Never knew they had those kind of bans ... I mean I know some bans or laws are really worthless. (We have a law that we not allowed to tie a giraffe on to a street light ..... since we have like 3 giraffes in our whole state.) Yeah, criminals always have their back doors to get something. I agree with that.

Wolverine wrote: Do you honestly think a piece of paper is going to stop someone from carrying concealed weapons?

Do you think that anyone with a concealed weapon has malicious intent?

A: If they have no malicious intent then it should not bug them.

B: No, but how would it hurt them not to conceal it if they not going to use it to commit acts of crime.

Wolverine wrote: Many gun owners are responsible, there's one hundred millionish gun owners in America, there's only about 760 fatal gun related accidents per year.

True, compared to how many people their are in the United States.

Wolverine wrote: An alarm system is a great idea, but many people cannot afford one, so a 12ga. shotgun is the best #2 option.

True, wont argue against that :wink:

Wolverine wrote: Its good to see a new poster in these parts. :wink:

Yeah, I am really liking this forum and it is always interesting to learn and discuss about new things. Thank You

[perdidochas]

NovaPacifica wrote: Wolverine wrote:
1) Registration is an infringement on liberty, if the government knows what you have it knows what it can take.


- The government can also look up your credit card records and see what you have bought, unless you go as far as paying everything with cash. Same with registering a car, pretty much according to that they infringe on lots of stuff.

The difference is that the Constitution specifically mentions the right to bear arms. Requiring the registration of firearms is tantamount to requiring all printing presses to be registered, or that church rolls be examined.

NovaPacifica wrote: Wolverine wrote:
2) Restrictions are infringements on our rights to choose what we feel is the best weapon to defend ourselves with.


- True, but people do overdo it if we had the right to choose what weapon we wanted.

The same can be said of religion and of the press. We shouldn't allow freedom of those, because some people might overdo them.

NovaPacifica wrote: Wolverine wrote:
3) Bans are an infringement on the 2nd Amendment, as well as a violation of privacy and property rights.


- True, but how far can privacy go? I mean just a general question, you are right it does infringe on our rights but if we did not have any bans .. would we be in a better state?

Wolverine wrote:
4) Bans or restricting on concealed or open carry infringe on the rights of those who wish to defend themselves as any given moment.


- I understand the ban on concealing weapons, it is not only for protection of our self but also the officers. Also if you have the weapon in visible range , then you might be able to avoid a argument since the other guy would know better ... but that can also backfire. It is a iffy subject since both sides have its pros and cons. Also I believe the biggest defense is common sense. No need to conceal that...

Interestingly, though, states (including ones with large urban areas) that have liberalized (i.e. made more easy) the requirements for concealed carry have not seen a rise in crime. In fact, on the whole, most have seen a drop in crime. Responsible people with concealed weapons are no danger to anybody (except maybe those who would seek to prey on them).

NovaPacifica wrote: Wolverine wrote:
5) Anti-gunners only feel safe when in the presence of other anti's. They fear anyone with a gun, and the guns themselves. They are intentional infringing on their own liberty when they fear that anyone will kill them.


- Not sure how to reply on that one...

Wolverine wrote:
6) Anti-gunners have limited liberty when it comes to defending their homes and property. The bad guy has a gun, they have a baseball bat. A pro-gunner has the ability to defend his/her loved ones and property without the need to be face to face with the criminal while attempting to subdue the criminal with melee style attacks.
They feel helpless, and they want everyone else to be helpless too.


- Very good point, in my opinion having a gun at your home should be perfectly legal, you have every right to defend yourself on your own property. But yet people need to be responsible with the whole deal of having a weapon.

I don't think anybody on the pro-gun side would disagree with that.

NovaPacifica wrote: Wolverine wrote:
7) Anti-gunners basically endanger the well being of their family by not choosing to own a gun.
They fear inanimate objects (hoplophobia), and they want everyone else to fear inanimate objects too.


- Depends, we do not carry a gun at our house but we do have our own ways of protecting each other. Also instant silent alarm is the way to go ... but then again not everyone has a alarm system.

Alarms only work when you have power AND phone service.

[ubikk]

Wolverine wrote: What I find ironic is that gun control advocates often call themselves liberals (they actually misuse the word), but gun control is a restriction of liberty. Many liberals are anti-large government, they protest the Patriot Act, War in Iraq, NSA spying, Bush's treason, but they fail to note the errors in their ways when they promote gun control, which is an infringement on our rights.

There are a lot of people who support the right to own guns but also support other liberal policies like labor unions, minimum wages, public education, unfettered free speech, rights to personal privacy, etc., etc.

This is the danger that comes with trying to lump all of the people into two neat groups, which seems to be the theme of the day on PC forum today

[perdidochas]

ubikk wrote: Wolverine wrote: What I find ironic is that gun control advocates often call themselves liberals (they actually misuse the word), but gun control is a restriction of liberty. Many liberals are anti-large government, they protest the Patriot Act, War in Iraq, NSA spying, Bush's treason, but they fail to note the errors in their ways when they promote gun control, which is an infringement on our rights.

[size=14]There are a lot of people who support the right to own guns but also support other liberal policies like labor unions, minimum wages, public education, unfettered free speech, rights to personal privacy, etc., etc.

Undoubtedly, however most politicians who support such policies (I can't think of any exceptions) are anti-gun.

[ubikk]

perdidochas wrote: ubikk wrote: Wolverine wrote: What I find ironic is that gun control advocates often call themselves liberals (they actually misuse the word), but gun control is a restriction of liberty. Many liberals are anti-large government, they protest the Patriot Act, War in Iraq, NSA spying, Bush's treason, but they fail to note the errors in their ways when they promote gun control, which is an infringement on our rights.

[size=14]There are a lot of people who support the right to own guns but also support other liberal policies like labor unions, minimum wages, public education, unfettered free speech, rights to personal privacy, etc., etc.

Undoubtedly, however most politicians who support such policies (I can't think of any exceptions) are anti-gun.

There are many pro-gun democrats, both in congress and running for other offices. There are millions of pro-union people who hunt and own guns. 99% of my family votes democrat and are pro-union, and a good percentage of them are hunters and own hand guns.

FWIW, The number 1 liberal radio talk show host in the country, Ed Schultz, is also pro gun. No one is calling him a conservative.

Here is a site that has gun control politicians from both partie in just one state, Virginia:

http://www.issues2000.org/states/VA_Gun_Control.htm

Ohio's current democratic gubernatorial candidate gets an "A" from the NRA on gun control:

http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Ted_Strickland_Gun_Control.htm

I'm sure there are more examples.

[perdidochas]

ubikk wrote: perdidochas wrote: ubikk wrote: Wolverine wrote: What I find ironic is that gun control advocates often call themselves liberals (they actually misuse the word), but gun control is a restriction of liberty. Many liberals are anti-large government, they protest the Patriot Act, War in Iraq, NSA spying, Bush's treason, but they fail to note the errors in their ways when they promote gun control, which is an infringement on our rights.

[size=14]There are a lot of people who support the right to own guns but also support other liberal policies like labor unions, minimum wages, public education, unfettered free speech, rights to personal privacy, etc., etc.

Undoubtedly, however most politicians who support such policies (I can't think of any exceptions) are anti-gun.

There are many pro-gun democrats, both in congress and running for other offices. There are millions of pro-union people who hunt and own guns. 99% of my family votes democrat and are pro-union, and a good percentage of them are hunters and own hand guns.

FWIW, The number 1 liberal radio talk show host in the country, Ed Schultz, is also pro gun. No one is calling him a conservative.

Here is a site that has gun control politicians from both partie in just one state, Virginia:

http://www.issues2000.org/states/VA_Gun_Control.htm

Ohio's current democratic gubernatorial candidate gets an "A" from the NRA on gun control:

http://www.ontheissues.org/OH/Ted_Strickland_Gun_Control.htm

I'm sure there are more examples.

Well, maybe the dems are getting smarter. Look at the anti-gun records of most of the Democratic leadership, though.

[Wolverine]

NovaPacifica wrote:
Yet it is sad that car crashes kill more innocent lifes then gun shootings.
And registration should be saving 99% of those lives.

Wolverine wrote:
But how can the government prevent something that is first non-negatively and then turns negatively before it is to late?
The government shoul lock up every Muslim in the country before it is too late.

Preemptive logic does not work, the government should protect the peoples right to the fullest extent without trampling their rights

Wolverine wrote:
Never knew they had those kind of bans ... I mean I know some bans or laws are really worthless. (We have a law that we not allowed to tie a giraffe on to a street light ..... since we have like 3 giraffes in our whole state.) Yeah, criminals always have their back doors to get something. I agree with that.
:lol: A giraffe to a street light? :lol:

But seriously, we seem to be seeing eye to eye.

Wolverine wrote:
A: If they have no malicious intent then it should not bug them.
Its a right ot keep and bear arms. The US should have more states like Alaska and Vermont, no permit required to carry a concealed weapon.

Quote: B: No, but how would it hurt them not to conceal it if they not going to use it to commit acts of crime.
Most states allow concealed carry, and there's not a crime wave happening within them.


Many people, including my self (once I'm old enough for CCW), prefer concealed carry over open carry.
This allows people to go along their daily life without receiving a "Oh my gosh! He's got a gun!" look every five minutes.

Wolverine wrote:
True, compared to how many people their are in the United States.
Around 300 million.

Wolverine wrote:
Yeah, I am really liking this forum and it is always interesting to learn and discuss about new things. Thank You
This is the place. I joined over year ago, I have learned a great deal and I set my politics more solidly now that I understand them more.