Gun Control

[NeonMoon]

--
Not sure why everybody seems to get the impression that I am 'anti-gun' I don't have a problem with anybody thinking they feel safer with a piece on them, I believe paranoia is an ugly creature and thats how I see that situation... I don't think as some of you guys do that our schools ought to be armed to the teeth, I don't have a problem with trained armed guards but the expense would be pretty heavy considering that even in a smaller town there might be 3 or 4 schools, thats a good many full time trained officers and my point has been during this entire discussion that taxes are plenty heavy enough already and I doubt seriously if armed guards would have prevented even one of these tragedies over the years.

Well, when one supports gun control, in any form, I don't exactly consider them "pro" 2A. "Shall NOT be infringed" is pretty clear.

You keep talking about others being paranoid, making it seem that people who answer the door armed are nuts, and at the same time express your concern for what others choose to own. Have YOU ever been confronted by ANY of those weapons you're condemning? If not, kinda makes you a hypocrite don't it? I mean, talk about paranoid, you don't think YOU are?

Another prime example of how the lamestream media has affected your thinking.....

I don't think as some of you guys do that our schools ought to be armed to the teeth

Who said that? Granted, it's early (coffee not taken effect), I didn't re-read the thread, but I don't recall any mention of anything remotely close to that. Seriously, stop drinking the kool-aid and put a little thought into what you're saying on how you believe this stuff.

Schools get federal funding, refer back to politicians having their "priorities" on how they waste, I mean spend our money. Think it's fair to see US dollars go to some 3rd world "pit", while people here go without? Already had this discussion. For the taxes paid in the US, there's plenty of money, it's just being misdirected.

Your last statement makes it sound as if you think your local PD serves no purpose as well then. Not seeing much difference other than one enforces laws, the other is simply there "just in case".

Still, I think the entire subject (armed schools as well as gun control) is simply a misdirected band-aid, and more focus needs to be on those who commit these crimes, guns or no guns. Then again, that wouldn't serve the political agenda.

[NeonMoon]

The truth about "Assault Weapons"

The Truth About Assault Weapons

(Be sure to note you navigate pages via right arrow)

[HLLeonard]

Jeepguyjames, clown, fool, ect, is fine with me, and I too am not "anti gun, or even "anti rifle". Realistically, with ALL the firearms being bought by persons who in many cases have never owned 1 before and bought it LARGELY out of paranoia, without bothering to become trained to SAFELY use and STORE it, ie, trigger locks, ect you REALLY think the # of adults and tragically kids accidently shooting themselves will magically go DOWN ? Would honestly BET more than a couple of the hundreds of thousands of new owners keep the AMMO right next to the GUN, or likely even FULLY LOADED where they (and unfortunately their KIDS) can "quickly get to it..." But, hey, NO 'sacrifice' is TOO GREAT to feel "safer', right? God help us all...

--
I have a brother who has the self defense afliction and he keeps a handgun lying on the night stand beside him loaded like you said, he raised kids also and as far as I know , has never had an incident that turned tragic but I always expected to get a phone call that one of his kids had gotten hold of it... I believe there is more of that kind of thing than there is of protecting yourself or your family with the gun.

[NeonMoon]

I've read back through some of these postings, and have a question.

For those of you who think the 2nd Amendment is "outdated", answer me this.......

If that's the case, does the same hold true for the 1st? I mean, when written (Constitution) quill pens and hand presses were used. Does this mean 1st Amendment Rights don't apply to TV, Internet, and Newspapers? They should be allowed to be controlled, like you claim the Right to own (any) weapons should?

[Cane Pole]

I've read back through some of these postings, and have a question.

For those of you who think the 2nd Amendment is "outdated", answer me this.......

If that's the case, does the same hold true for the 1st? I mean, when written (Constitution) quill pens and hand presses were used. Does this mean 1st Amendment Rights don't apply to TV, Internet, and Newspapers? They should be allowed to be controlled, like you claim the Right to own (any) weapons should?

Rights, privileges and entitlements belong to liberals. Ask any of the nuts. You don't count.

[NeonMoon]

Rights aren’t ‘Rights’ if someone can take ‘em away, they’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country: a Bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter.

George Carlin

[Cane Pole]

I like George Carlin and Galegar. I saw them both at Von Braun Center in Huntsville, Al. They make more sense than any politician.

[no1son]

I've read back through some of these postings, and have a question.

For those of you who think the 2nd Amendment is "outdated", answer me this.......

If that's the case, does the same hold true for the 1st? I mean, when written (Constitution) quill pens and hand presses were used. Does this mean 1st Amendment Rights don't apply to TV, Internet, and Newspapers? They should be allowed to be controlled, like you claim the Right to own (any) weapons should?

I definitely believe in a literal Constitution, but I do not see the same literal as many others do. I also definitely want to maintain the 2nd Amendment, but I do not see any reference in it that gives firearms any special status nor having surveyed the variety of opinions brought to the framing of that one sentence do I see that the framers were in accord on anything but one main issue.

That was to keep the state militias free from being absorbed into the Federal government and in the process to keep the Federal government from disarming them. I think that is absolutely vital to maintaining the local nature of the management of our system of law and order, which dovetails with other Constitutional bans on Federal military domestic action except in some very few, very specific cases. I absolutely do not want a single consolidated national police force, one that can be easily integrated with a Federal military to enforce national tyranny; that would be the most emphatic danger to personal liberty I can imagine for all that localized control complicates things when state lines and jurisdictions are crossed.

From everything I can read that is in agreement with all those who wrote the second amendment, while there was little other total agreement on anything else related.

And I think my take is as literal, but quite obviously not identical, to other literal readings. In short I think the Second Amendment is vital, but not on a personal rights basis and I also think that it does not specifically protect individual gun rights any more than it protects any other form of personal armament, from switchblades, daggers, and swords to fully automatic weapons, most of which have always been controlled in some form or other nearly everywhere in the country, even by most of the framers and backers of the original amendment itself. One of the big problems is that differences of opinion beyond protecting the state militias covered a full spectrum and one can extract specific quotes to back nearly any stance one chooses to take, except for consolidated and totally nationalized peace keepers.

To me the most important part of the 2nd Amendment is that it forbids a completely nationalized police force and forbids the Federal government to disarm official state peace keepers. That seems to me to be the best protection against tyranny, especially by coup or overriding regional dominance, that there is to be found. Pretty obviously since personal and regional differences exist in what is literal, there is going to be some intense debate and certainly hard feelings as one side or another dominates, if that ever actually happens.

[HLLeonard]

Well, when one supports gun control, in any form, I don't exactly consider them "pro" 2A. "Shall NOT be infringed" is pretty clear.

You keep talking about others being paranoid, making it seem that people who answer the door armed are nuts, and at the same time express your concern for what others choose to own. Have YOU ever been confronted by ANY of those weapons you're condemning? If not, kinda makes you a hypocrite don't it? I mean, talk about paranoid, you don't think YOU are?

Another prime example of how the lamestream media has affected your thinking.....


Who said that? Granted, it's early (coffee not taken effect), I didn't re-read the thread, but I don't recall any mention of anything remotely close to that. Seriously, stop drinking the kool-aid and put a little thought into what you're saying on how you believe this stuff.

Schools get federal funding, refer back to politicians having their "priorities" on how they waste, I mean spend our money. Think it's fair to see US dollars go to some 3rd world "pit", while people here go without? Already had this discussion. For the taxes paid in the US, there's plenty of money, it's just being misdirected.

Your last statement makes it sound as if you think your local PD serves no purpose as well then. Not seeing much difference other than one enforces laws, the other is simply there "just in case".

Still, I think the entire subject (armed schools as well as gun control) is simply a misdirected band-aid, and more focus needs to be on those who commit these crimes, guns or no guns. Then again, that wouldn't serve the political agenda.

--
Everybody believes in gun control to some degree, It would probably be tough to find somebody who thinks convicted felons should still have their second amendment rights, it's just a matter of where any of us draw the line, assault weapons have supposedly been banned for years and if thats true then why do we need new laws to ban them.

When the doorbell rings I answer the door, all has been ok so far, when I want to go to town I don't take my gun with me, all has been ok so far so paranoia as far as self defense goes doesn't interfere with my everyday life.

I believe in the course of this thread and other threads more than one poster has advocated teachers and other school personnel arm themselves to take out the bad guys.

As far as law enforcement, about all they can do is come in after the fact and pick up the pieces, law enforcement makes our everyday environment safer because nobody wants to go to jail and we do a fairly good job of sending people to jail for breaking the laws... Not as good a job as we should do though.

If you were referring to the deputy at the school, I doubt even he knows just how exactly he is supposed to stop a tragedy from occurring there but it is an attempt at doing something even if we don't know just exactly what that something should be.

I may have to go back and reread my post to see what weapons that are legal now that I have advocated banning.

[no1son]

I pulled my doorbell some years ago. when the original in my old house failed, I went down to the local hardware store and got an inexpensive replacement that had a radio frequency send to a receiver you just plugged into a wall socket. Turns out some four or five other residences on my block got the same model. When one of them had the button pushed they all sounded off! That didn't go over real well with any of us! I pulled mine and found I liked it pretty well not having a door bell at all.

Back on topic, though, it is a very good point that everybody is in favor of some form of gun control at least to a minimal degree; so this is not really an absolute individual rights issue at all and never really was. The real question is not if but where to set the limits. It definitely pays to also remember that what one allows determines a big share of what is required to be defended against.