Would it bother you if they took away right to own a gun?

YES!
“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.”

I would be bothered by it. We own several guns for hunting and recreational shooting. I would not be happy if we lost our right to have them.

It would bother me if they messed with any part of the constitution, well without going through the process the nation needs to go through in order to amend it, that is.

And there you have it. A well regulated militia would keep its weapons stored in an armory. A private citizen owning a gun is a very different thing than an armed militia. I don’t own a gun, and do not care to debate the issue, since I don’t feel strongly enough either way. But I think that it’s self defeating to use the second amendment as an argument for private citizens to own a weapon. The intent and spirit was for a different issue entirely

@Trillian you are using today’s definition of militia. To comprehend the founders intent you have to use the same definition they did.

I do own guns It would more than bother me.
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.

I hate guns. Hate them. However, I’d sooner argue strong regulation of gun ownership than I would outright banning.

I clicked “Great Answer” 20 times on @lillycoyote’s post.

I wish I could debit my Lurve account with it.

Nope.

Handguns? No.

I’m with @lillycoyote. I don’t have a gun and I feel as if there should be much stricter gun control note: control not banning but I do not like the idea of the Constitution being fooled around with without the proper procedures. I also would be worried that if guns were banned, what would be next?

There is no push to take away guns in the US.

Just sayin’

@ipso Thanks anyway, sweetie! It’s the thought that counts.

I don’t own a gun and I don’t think I ever will but I can understand why people would be bothered by having one of their rights taken from them. I don’t have a problem with people owning hand guns or hunting riffles but I must say I do believe some types guns should not be sold to the general public. There should be more gun control and more restrictions for people who want to obtain a gun. In some places buying guns is like buying groceries. It’s pretty scary actually.

@jaytkay I have to disagree. There is no overt push to take away guns. But what do you call the attempt to get the EPA to ban lead in bullets…something it is explicitly prohibited from regulating.

Not at all. My people don’t use gun and they’re just fine. It’s forbidden for a citizen to own a gun here anyway.

I’m sure most postal employees would prefer that handguns be banned.

Me, I don’t own a gun.

It would bother me if the right was removed, not because I want a gun, but because it would be an ominous event.

I genuinely do not understand the desire for tougher gun control laws. I’m serious when I ask this: aren’t you afraid that at some point it will be like the prohibition of alcohol, or drugs.. in that only the bad guys will be able to get them? How safe can we possibly feel once your average law abiding citizen has no way to obtain a firearm, but the exact people that we do not want to have the guns are the only ones that can get them?

I’m not trying to pick a fight, I really do want to understand the other side.

@WestRiverrat Whether or not the EPA has the authority, banning a particular type of bullet is not an attempt to take people’s guns away. Lead is incredibly toxic, leaving lead ordnance lying around where it can leach into aquifers and groundwater, etc. is not necessarily a good thing. Really, the less lead leaching into the environment the better, if you ask me.

This is one of the few issues that I take a hardline stance on.

I am vehemently against any legislation that affects my right to own a gun, and yes, I own several.

@Trillian the 18th century usage of the word “regulated” was “to put in good order” or “to ensure the efficiency of.” Also, the use of the words “right of the people” is there for a reason. It’s not “right of the government” or “right of the militia or military.”

Only law abiding citizens will disarm. Drug traffickers from US, Mexico, and elsewhere will certainly not turn in their already illegal weapons to the authorities.

Who will collect the weapons? I know there are lots of folks who would absolutely refuse to turn theirs in. It would be a horribly violent affair methinks.

@TheOnlyNeffie I genuinely do not understand the desire for tougher gun control laws. I’m serious when I ask this…I’m not trying to pick a fight, I really do want to understand the other side.

The most obvious argument is an available handgun makes murder and mayhem A LOT more likely. People don’t get fired and then return to the workplace with poison or a kitchen knife to take revenge.

Yes it would bother me. I own a pistol now and plan to own others. It doesn’t sit well with me that only law enforcement and criminals might have firearms. I don’t feel well to rely only on law enforcement response to protect me in an emergency. Hell, I don’t even feel comfortable trying to call and reach a live person on the phone and risk being prompted to first “press 1 if I speak English” and bs like that.

@TheOnlyNeffie And I don’t understand how some people can’t tell the difference between gun control and complete gun prohibition. I don’t understand how gun owners can’t get by on 12 semi-automatic weapons a month.

@jaytkay they don’t. But would they if firearms were not available? Humans are pretty resourceful creatures.

@lillycoyote I certainly can. However, I have met plenty of people that would be quite happy with either ending. (Stricter control and/or prohibition.) This thread is about prohibition, which is why I took it to the extreme.

i wish someone would show me a reasonable gun law (or any law)that a criminal will take seriously. A ban on one particular kind of gun based on the way they look will turn into a ban on the rest. Gun bans don’t work just ask Mayor Daley of Chicago. Or Adrian Fenty of D.C. They are the leaders of the worst murder capitals in the world and they both have very strick gun laws. So yeah, it would bug the hell out of me to no end.

Not at all. First, I have never used or own a gun. Second, I think it will just be safer for everyone if people weren’t allowed to own guns. Sure, there are many responsible people out there who know how to use a gun, but there are also many out there who abuse it.

@lillycoyote if you pay attention to so-called gun control measures, you will note that many of them serve as de facto prohibition.

For instance, the assault weapons ban (which many gun control advocates describe as “reasonable”) is really just a list of arbitrary features that hardly if at all effect the function of the actual firearm and simply makes it more difficult for law-abiding gun owners to remain in compliance.

Another example was a proposed law to ban gun sales within a certain distance from any park, school, or church… Can you think of an area in America that isn’t close to at least one of these locales?

Going even further, there are some cities which claim that you “still have your Second Amendment rights” but they go on to ban “unsafe handguns.” What handguns are considered by these cities to be unsafe? Look at the list and you will see nearly all of the most popular brands…

Yes. I don’t own one nor do I ever intend to own one, but it’s the principle of the matter. I don’t think people should be able to easily obtain guns, but I do think that they should ultimately be allowed to own one if they meet the requirements.

I don’t live in an area where I would need one and hopefully I never will, so I really don’t care for guns. No, it wouldn’t bother me, but I am aware some people need guns because of where they live.

@jaytkay I challenge you to a Banjo Duel.

@MRSHINYSHOES We were just told that the police here no longer have to respond to a call in person. They can phone you.

How am I going to protect my family or myself from someone that doesn’t have any respect for the law if I am not allowed to have a firearm? I cannot rely on the police until after the fact.

@TheOnlyNeffie When I mention gun regulation, one of my main concerns is whether the individual person requesting ownership knows how to properly use the weapon. I don’t know how it is in every state, but in California we have a 30-question safety exam. That’s kind of stupid to me. Anyone who wants to purchase a gun should be required to take a hands-on training session so they know how to properly use the type of arms they wish to purchase and pass a written examination. I don’t care whether someone owns one gun or ten, but I would feel much safer knowing their intention for purchasing (whether it recreational use or safety) and that they are capable of taking precautions when using the gun(s).

@muppetish Thanks for explaining. :)

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard My dearest, again, with all due respect, even banning the sale of certain firearms, or banning the sale of certain firearms under certain conditions, is not banning the sale or possession of all firearms under all conditions which is what a firearms prohibition would consist of, and thus does not constitute any sort of de facto firearms prohibition at all, IMHO.

@lillycoyote, also with all due respect, as you are one of my most cherished flutherites where is reasonable to draw the line, then? Single shot shotguns? AR-15s? NFA items? Wherever that line is drawn, the law abiding citizen still loses in a world where the “bad guy” is probably always going to be capable of getting whatever firepower he can, despite even the earnest efforts of legislators.

@WestRiverrat Use your hands and fight like a man. :P

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Going even further, there are some cities which claim that you “still have your Second Amendment rights” but they go on to ban “unsafe handguns.” What handguns are considered by these cities to be unsafe? Look at the list and you will see nearly all of the most popular brands

Here in Chicago all handguns were banned until the highly publicized recent Supreme Court ruling.

Not highly publicized was the fact that rifles and shotguns were not banned. Homeowners have been allowed firearms in Chcago all along.

The “law-abiding, home-protecting citizen” isn’t a sitting duck here.

P.S. In my neighborhood, I recall one shooting in ten years. Chicago is not all a shooting gallery.

@lillycoyote but who’s going to make sure the gangbangers steer clear of a type of gun that is on a banned list? You know they are going to be exactly the kind they will seek out. It’s not as if they go to gun shows and fill out all that paperwork that you or i must do.

@jaytkay, actually, he or she still is. Illinois still requires an FOID to purchase or own any gun, carry permits are not issued, and NFA items are completely forbidden.

Anyhoo, I’m out… Gotta go read some more Descartes for tomorrow. I’ll respond to any replies or issues tomorrow

I hate guns…...let’s limit them.

@MRSHINYSHOES if someone is breaking into my house, I am fighting to win as quickly and with as little effort as possible. To hell with being fair.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard RE: FOID and NFA and concealed carry in Chicago

True, we can’t legally walk around with pistols on our belts. But we can have rifles and shotguns. And the most common argument is about home protection.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Where do I draw the line? This is where I draw the line personally. I would like it to be much more difficult, if not extremely difficult to purchase easily concealable, semi-automatic weapons, semi-automatic handguns. There is not so much crime in the U.S. that your average law abiding home owner and gun enthusiast needs to be able to go and get one or ten at the drop of the hat. I found it absolutely appalling that, in reaction to the massacre at Virginia Tech so many people seemed to think: “Well, obviously, this is proof that what we need to do is allow 18 year old college students who are away from home for the first time in their lives and given to binge drinking, well we need to make sure that they can defend themselves by getting rid of that draconian and outdated ban on concealed weapons on college campuses.” That’s complete bullshit. Why are more guns always the answer to crimes committed with guns? Why isn’t the answer that maybe we should make it a lot harder for people to buy semi-automatic handguns, which they can simply stick in their pockets and which allow them to efficiently slaughter 32 people in how long? That’s where I draw the line but I am not a big fan of the slippery slope arguments and not you, but the NRA and many of their members are extremely fond of them. Slippery slope arguments are reactionary, and paranoid and not particularly reasonable.

@woodcutter The same people that try to make sure they don’t get their hands on grenade launchers

Also, @woodcutter could you tell me what type of arsenal you would need, what and how much would be enough to make you feel safe and comfortable and able to defend yourself and your family and property against gangbangers or what ever you feel you need to defend yourself against. I mean no disrespect, I would really like to know what do you thing you would need in your personal arsenal and how much of everything would make you feel safe and adequadely supplied to defend yourself, your family and your property?

What about the people that have no intention of shooting anyone, but just like to collect guns? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to own what they want.

I feel the need to repeat: nobody is clamoring to take away your guns .

I guarantee anybody stoking that fear is also asking you for money.

And @woodcutter I think we could go a long way by simply rigorously enforcing and prosecuting gun laws already on the books, rather than making any more. Found to be in illegal possession of a firearem? A felon illegally possessing a firearm? Possessing a firearm in violation of your probation or parole? That’s it. No pleading it down. Prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The end.

@jaytkay the OPs question is about taking away guns or at least the right to own them.

@WestRiverrat Well, we regulate what people can and cannot do. People are not permitted to simply collect whatever arms they want to collect. We do not allow people to collect grenade launchers, anti-aircraft artillery, infantry mortars and tactical nuclear weapons etc. We get to draw the line somewhere, the trick is deciding where. That is something we all have to work out together and not everyone will get everything they want. That is how societies work. I don’t really know the answers but I think debates like this are very important and I am very impressed with the quality of this debate. I’ve seen these discussions not go at all as well as this one has.

@lillycoyote but grenades are not the same thing here. those are already highly illegal and very controlled. Anyway, I think you would be shocked to learn just how many people do have their hands on ordinance like that. It’s America, you can get anything you want, if you know the right connections and most importantly have the money. If the cops have center fire rifles with hi-cap magazines then so shall I. If the gangbangers have the same hardware, then so shall I. I want the ability to project power. I want to win…every time, should it come to that. Self defense is a solemn business. It’s easily the last day of your life if you attempt to handle that task being fair. If there is ever a Katrina type disaster where social breakdown is eminent I want the throng that is roaming the streets looking to take advantage of a terrible situation to know that there is a Kalashnikov nearby. They will avoid my entire street for at least 400 meters in all directions and my family and neighbors will have a fighting chance to make it through. To be able to accomplish this kind of survival it takes preparation. A person set on coming out the other end of such a hell will practice. And then practice some more. And then when he’s feeling like he’s got it down….practice again. This means lots and lots of ammunition will be expended. It’s not cheap. We need to always be getting more ammo and have a rainy day supply in the stash. It will also be a good idea to own a spare rifle that is the same caliber as it is possible for a rifle to go down. This…and the fact that I like to collect any weapon that I can because I like them. None of mine, (since I’ve owned them), have never harmed anyone. They are locked up where nobody but me can get them. And sure, I keep a couple loaded and ready. The idea is to not be caught flat footed in an emergency trying to get your act together. You’ve seen it before in this country and others. When the shit hits the fan there will be no police, there will be no government, there will be no god…..just you.

The lead argument is total bullshit. I would wager that an animal with buckshot in it is safer and less toxic than a CAFO animal.

The authority on bullet control.

If you have a gun license you should be aloud a gun. What we need to do is better the standards for who gets a gun license.

@lillycoyote it is currently legal to own and even use fully functional machine guns and artillery as a civillian with the proper federal license. In fact every item you mentioned with the possible exception of the tactical nuclear device is legal to own and operate with the proper class III license and the appropriate permits.

@WestRiverrat @woodcutter If everyone can get grenade launchers if they need to and want to and you can legally possess artillery what are you all so worried about? Don’t you think that would be the first thing the government would go after, in terms of prohibiting arms possession? Don’t you think they’d go after that first if they wanted to disarm you, rather than your rifles and handguns?

@lillycoyote it’s not like everyone has a class III license. Anyway, those type of licenses are only for those interested in obeying federal law. Non licensed people can get those kind of weapons too through the black market. That’s the point of not banning certain types of firearms. All the politicians know this too, that the bad people will acquire them no matter what law they pass. They only push for this type of legislation to gain political points. It’s not about public safety with them. So what would you really rather have…only the career criminals getting them ( they will anyway) or law abiding people also getting them to have an offsetting effect? I see the news regularly and haven’t seen any stories of crimes involving artillery or other destructive devises. You don’t see the liberal politicians screaming about there being too many artillery pieces on our streets. Those are already against the law (unless you have the proper clearance). Everyone is pretty satisfied there are enough rules on the books regulating destructive devises.

Nope.

Damn right I would. I absolutely earn the right to squirt my water pistol. As long as I use it wisely & within the law that is ;¬}

Yes and even more so if they even tried to take mine away. Personally I think civilians owning military style weapons is a bit much. I personally think that it is way too easy to buy a gun and even easier to buy all the ammo you want. A little change in that part of the process could be good.

The government can’t take that right. The government can take people’s guns, but it would be in violation of that right. Any government that deny its citizens from bearing arms, will be the same government that will deny its citizens free speech, the ability to assemble, privacy and everything else that is in the US Bill of Rights.

OMG if the government took away our guns how would I shoot all the intruders who break into my home!!! I am SO good at shooting them instead of getting shot myself and I am way too smart and good at stuff to use my gun to kill myself or a family member or for a small child to find the gun and cause an accidental death. That just doesn’t happen! Right?

Hmm, I wonder if we have any way to investigate what it would look like if a government tried to regulate gun ownership? It would be anarchy, right? I mean I’ve never been to the UK but I hear it is just a shooting gallery for all the criminals out there because if you out law guns, only outlaws have guns!

@nikipedia- And if you outlaw cars only outlaws have cars.
Never have really understood the logic in that saying about outlaws and guns.

In my country, self defense is not a legitimate reason to own a gun. I know that in some places in other countries, people have genuine reasons to consider themselves at risk, but I believe that simply giving people the ability to protect themselves is not the right way to get around the problem. I know that many Americans hold very tightly to their constitution, but as an outsider I have no qualms disagreeing with the part regarding the right to bear arms.

It would bother me if they just decided to ban gun ownership all at once, because that would be the stupidest thing you could do. I also admittedly have no problem with the collection of historical firearms, or with the use of guns for recreational target shooting, and maybe some other reasons. But aside from these exceptions, I support a gradual phasing out of gun ownership, in conjunction with a strong anti-crime, anti-gang effort. The important thing is that a cultural change occurs: the need to bear arms fades away, violence is tolerated less, crimes are more difficult to carry out.

I know many people will see this as a ridiculous and naive dream, but while I’m not talking about utopia, I believe that a concentrated effort against guns, as long as they are associated with violence, will result in communities learning to approach conflicts with humane and peaceful attitudes. Over years and generations I believe it would be a change for the better.

@Cruiser- in most places there is a bit of paperwork that includes a phone call to the FBI database to see if you are a prohibited person. Seems pretty thorough to me. How much more red tape would it take to make it hard enough to buy a firearm? Why do we need the govt to make anything harder than it already is? Now….keeping in mind, which is what many people seem to forget is, those bent on getting a gun for bad reasons aren’t going to pay money to a licensed gun dealer, ever. In fact having a ban on guns would be a wet dream to those folks who’s stock in trade is the wrongful use of guns. They would love that. Imagine this….unfettered access to anyone’s home they want, anytime. I’m sure they would become brutally brave as soon as they learn that they have nothing to fear from a home dweller. That’s what society does not need, criminals who are even braver than they are now. Remember when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

@woodcutter Illinois has more regulations than other states and even IMO it is WAAAY too easy to get firearms and the worst offenders are gun shows around here. The paper work and background checks are cursory at best. I had a harder time buying liquor when I was younger and legal than I did buying my most recent shotgun. Just my opinion and I am a strong support of gun ownership rights but in my personal opinion legal requirements and the process involved could be tighter and at the very least have some uniformity state to state. I don’t know which ones but I think some states allow cash and carry purchases.

Heck in Texas you only need a note from your parents for a kid under 18 to be able to go buy a gun. “Here you go son….pick out a nice Ruger for yourself when you go get the milk and bread!”

Oh goodness… I’ve had a long day today with good old Descartes and I’ve got to go tutor some freshmen and debate David Hume in about ten minutes, so for the time being, I’d like to encourage everyone in this thread to have a look at this lengthy article that addresses just about all of the common myths and misunderstandings about gun politics and control. It is well cited and factually based. Take a look at it with an open mind, and get back to me. I’ll come back with better, personal discussions after I’m out of early modern philosophy mode….

Where I live there are flea markets. A woman at work has a father in his 80’s who just got out of Federal prison after a 14 month stay for selling guns to felons at said flea market. Aparently he came under investgation becaus a gun that he sold was used in a robbery and subsequent shooting. The man was killed. So ATF sent decoys to him to see if he was abiding by the guidelines. He wasn’t. The sent three decoys, all of whom straight up told him that they were felnos or the person they were buying the gun for was a felon. He sold the guns anyway. Then his rickety old ass went to prison.
Laws do not prevent law breakers from obtaining guns.
I understand that the purpose of a militia was to form up under the direction of a designated leader and point their guns in the direction ordered and shoot. At the direction of the designated leader.
I don’t know more about the issue. As a Corpsman, I never carried a weapon, though I would have been issued a sidearm under certain circumstances and authorized to use it in defense of myself or a patient.

Yes it would. In the words of Charleston Heston- ” I’ll give up my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hand”. I can see a criminal not owning one but in this day and age we all need protection. Also hubby has hunting rifles.

My usual comment on gun ownership in response to this frequently discussed Fluther topic is that I detest guns and will never own one. And one of the responses to that is, “criminals have them, citizens must have them, too.” So this time, my response will be slightly modified…

YES! I believe all weapons, from cap pistols and BB guns to A-weaponry, should be taken out of the hands of criminals, citizens, hunters, soldiers, gun collectors, terrorists, and younsters who play cowboy. I know this isn’t possible, but that’s my belief.

Okay, out of pure curiosity I have a sort of “intellectual exercise” for some of the gun control proponents in this thread. This is more aimed at those like @lillycoyote or @Cruiser who have in some way engaged in the “where do you draw the line” debate, than any user who has called for or expressed interest in an outright ban or prohibition.

I have two photos of gun collections that I would like for you to look at, and I would like for you to tell me which guns in these photos you think should be banned or restricted, and which are okay and why. This isn’t an attack being set up, or anything, and it is more for my personal curiosity and interest and to gain some perspective on how the “other side” views the “where do you draw the line?” argument.

So remember… look at the photos, and tell me which guns should be prohibited or restricted in some way, and why.

A modest collection

A more expansive collection

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard I don’t have a problem with either and in fact would love to have either one…very nice well rounded collections each! My concern(s) are with the ease of the purchase is all. I felt my whole process recently at a sporting goods store was cursory at best. To me my issue is with the record verification process, background check and waiting period. Plus the gun shows here are shaky at best as far as buying ammo and antique weapons. A gun is a gun and should all be treated equally as far as owning and purchasing and here it is not treated equally let alone states that have even more liberal purchasing policies. I spoke my peace.

@Cruiser, I still disagree about purchasing, but thank you for your opinion and your input. +GA.

Ownership of guns by private citizens is a constitutional right. The only reason it would even be discussed is that someone wants to wiggle around a constitutional right and limit it or abolish it. I don’t even own a gun, but I will soon, just because of the predatory attitudes of gun control advocates.

We are supposed to have a well regulated militia. That means the state controlled National Guard. We should not take their guns away. As for the rest of us, I don’t see anything wrong with owing a hunting rifle or a small calibre handgun. I see no reason that some people assert their right to own automatic weapons or even more powerful weapons. It is nonsensical and I suspect that owing a big gun. like a big car or truck is compensating for personal inadequacies.

@Ron_C you are using the modern version of a well regulated militia. When the Bill of Rights was written, a well regulated militia was all able bodied men between 21 and 45. If you had the means you were to provide your own weapons, uniform and gear. If you could not afford to own a musket, the town hosting the militia was to provide one from stores they were required to keep.

Even up to the early 20th century it was common for a private citizen of means to raise, arm and supply regiments for the army in times of war. Teddy Roosevelt’s Roughriders was one such regiment. Often the volunteer regiments had better weapons than the regulars.

At San Juan Hill for instance the roughriders were armed with modern machine guns and bolt action rifles. The regulars from the 10th Cav that went up the hill with the roughriders had Gatling guns and single shot Trapdoor springfield rifles that were manufactured from Civil war surplus rifled muskets.

@WestRiverrat “you are using the modern version of a well regulated militia” exactly because we live in modern times. I specifically do not want a “well heeled individual” to raise an army, remember Blackwater?

Just because you can afford a weapon superior to the Army’s doesn’t mean you should have it. It made sense to have a local militia when settlers were in danger from random criminal bands or Indians wanting their land back. That time has passed and if the Hell’s Angels show up wanting to take over the down, we have a local police force backed by the State Police. If they can’t handle it we call up the National Guard. If all of that fails, I guess we join the Hell’s Angels.

The second amendment is there for when the enemies of the people are the ones that are in power. It is not there to protect hunting or target shooting. It is there to instill a healthy respect of the citizens in the people chosen to represent them.

“The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Judge Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit

@WestRiverrat who decides “one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed”? I want that to be MY decision, not some ultra right gun lobbyists or creepy faux journalists like Glenn Beck.

How is anyone other than you having guns taking that choice from you? If you don’t agree with someone when they make that choice, either sit back and do nothing or support the people in power.

If you take my guns from me, you have taken that choice from me.

No one is forced to own a gun if they choose not to. No one should be forced to not own guns, if they have not proven to be unworthy of the right.

@WestRiverrat I don’t disagree with anything you said in the previous statement. I believe gun ownership is a personal choice. I don’t believe that the choice is covered by an amendment to the constitution, it is just part of the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness clause in the preamble to the constitution.

@WestRiverrat Yes, and the bad person can have a gun before you do, and kill you and your family first. I say ban all guns for everyone, then you have a much safer world overall. If the person attacks you without a gun, then you will have to use your wits and hands against his/hers. Because of that, you can still beat the evildoer with trained hands and feet. I’ve done it. It’s too easy for any nut to pull a trigger, and stupid too because he/she usually has the weapon already on hand. Sure you’d have a gun too, but it’s usually too late and too dangerous. You endanger not only yourself but every other innocent person involved. And I’m not even talking about “accidental tragic deaths from firearms” alone! Sheesh.

People are always talking about “rights, rights, rights”—-it’s “my right to do this, it’s my right to do that!”, whining like little babies without considering the negative impact their selfishness has on the good of society. Sometimes we have to side-step an individual’s rights for the overall safety and welfare of society as a whole.

@MRSHINYSHOES Why is my self defense firearms training any less valid than your training with your hands and feet? I have used my firearm to defend my home. No one got hurt, not even the thief. My neighbors and my family were not in any danger from me. There were not even any shots fired. I have training in hand to hand combat, if I would have chosen that option, the thief and/or myself would have gotten hurt and the house would have been a mess.

Why do you assume that just because I collect and train with guns that I am going to shoot first and assess the situation second?

@WestRiverrat It’s less valid because any dummy can pull the trigger to kill someone, but it takes real skill to use martial arts training against an evildoer. And often the real winners involving guns are the dumb criminals who are already armed and crazed, resulting in tragic outcomes for the innocent, even if the innocent have guns to protect themselves. It’s like fighting fire with fire. You can’t put out a fire by adding more fire! Overall it’s not a good situation for all involved, criminals and the innocent.
I don’t assume you are going to shoot first. In no way did I say or even imply that my friend. I think guns should only be in the hands of people trained to protect the public——the police. With that scenario, we’d have a much safer, less homicidal world.

Since when has the banning of ANYTHING really meant that, that item went away? If making a law is what it takes to make some people feel secure even if in reality it did not have the intended effect, then what good is such a law? It is already against the law to murder, so using the logic of the minority, there should be no more murders?

So, by your logic, we shouldn’t have any laws? That if we can’t get a 100% success rate, we shouldn’t bother?

@iphigeneia No my logic doesn’t indicate that at all. There are thousands of laws that don’t involve banning things. What has been discussed on this topic is the banning of things that we have a right to have. It’s a right, but a right with stipulations is really not a right at all. It becomes a privilege susceptible to the whims of others.

@woodcutter So, are you saying that the idea that one shouldn’t shoot another person or destroy another’s property with a gun is a stipulation? And a whim?

@Trillian that makes no sense. do you by any chance smoke stuff?

@woodcutter, using your example, we have ‘banned’ murder, and clearly it hasn’t worked. Would it be better if we simply unbanned it?

Furthermore, the right to have guns is not unquestionable.

@woodcutter. “It’s a right, but a right with stipulations is really not a right at all. It becomes a privilege susceptible to the whims of others.”
Can you have a discussion without resorting to diversions? To which “stipulations” and whims” do you refer?

@iphigeneia sigh.. no The murder of a person is morally wrong. There shouldn’t need to really be a law against it. Gun ownership is not morally wrong. So is clumping all gun owners together because a few people who do bad things.

@MRSHINYSHOES What if the ‘evildoer’ is not a person but a rabid raccoon? Is it better to risk getting bit by an animal with a disease that can kill you or to shoot it from a distance?

@Trillian Finally! I’m so glad you asked. Whims of others might but not be limited to, deciding which kinds of guns are worse than others by using over simplification,based on outward appearance in order to ban or limit their ammunition feeding devises. Or instituting a gun registry. The only reason those would be wanted is so there could be a confiscation at a later time. There is zero evidence that this will stop people from shooting someone. You might be forbidden to have guns if your doc prescribes anti depression meds. You could have your privacy violated because you will have to allow your name and address be published if you have a conceal carry permit. Or insurance companies will be able to charge you more for premiums if you disclose you own guns. Another stip could be that it be mandated all guns be disassembled when not in use. It would go on and on if not for the fact that gun owners spend money and lots of it to elect representatives and file lawsuits to preserve the right to bear arms. Taxing the crap out of ammunition and ammunition components. By making gun ownership such a hassle with red tape and jacking up the cost of owning guns to make them cost prohibitive-these are but a few whims and stipulations that would be easy to implement if the political landscape changes to suit them.. Others can chime in any time

@woodcutter Maybe you could weigh in on my question about this issue that I asked about an hour ago.
I’d guess that you would say there should be no limits.

So my question here never did get answered. What has been banned that really went away?

@Trillian Limits? You want limits? Well for starter we might try enforcing the laws already in place. If that was done alot of things might just get done. Making new laws that do nothing is a waste of time. There are enough gun laws on the books if enforced would help. The FBI has reported that violent crime is going down every year in the US, in most places. There are some where it is holding steady and those tend to correspond to those areas with strict gun regs.

@Ron_C, did you see my previous comment about the wording of the second amendment? Well-regulated meant, in 18th century English “to put in good order” or “to ensure the efficiency of.” Also, the use of the words “right of the people” is there for a reason. It’s not “right of the government” or “right of the militia or military.” It is an independent clause.

Also, the “making up for a personal deficiency” argument is a strawman. Why do people buy mouse guns and .22s if they are making up for their penises?

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard nice comeback on the penis envy slant. It really is unproductive to label those who have weapons as people who are compensating for their genitalia. It really is an indicator that the anti gun argument has run out of steam GA ;)

@woodcutter, thank you.

@woodcutter What I do not want is your ire. And if you would read my question you would maybe understand what I’m asking. You don’t need to be so abrupt and precipitous. I have no emotional investment in this issue, just a detached curiosity.
I’ve always watched the heated debates without really thinking it was an issue that would go away on its own, and really done nothing either way than NOT own a gun. I don’t feel the need, like I don’t feel the need to have a motorcycle. Or a truck. It simply doesnt interest me, do you see?
I just want to understand how people arrive at their conclusions and I sometimes want to just ask, “Oh, ok, but what about this? Is this in your equation anywhere?”
I’m certainly not trying to change anyone’s mind, or advocate my own passive lack of desire for a gun. Just trying to satisfy my genuine curiosity.
If you don’t want to take the time to read and respond to my question, that’s fine. Don’t bother giving me your unrelated arguments on this thread. You obviously have a lot more passion about this than I do.

@woodcutter does it really matter that the item never went away completely? Laws about drugs, weapons, immigration… they’re there so that we can control them. There are many arguments about what power the government should have, but if it is decided that Regulation X should be applied, then at least the number of offences can be minimised, even if some offences fall through the cracks. If what you say is true that the current laws are not being enforced properly, then obviously there is a problem.

You said that making new laws that do nothing is a waste of time. This is based on the assumption that tighter gun control would do nothing. I have straightforwardly said that I support having fewer guns in the arms of the general populace, but with or without this opinion, I still believe it can be done if brought about in the right way.

@Trillian What “ire”, where? I think I have done well to answer what you want. I pay attention to the issues and listen to both sides. That is why i have the answers. It’s really hard to stump me on this topic. On subjects I know little about I get stumped, let others do the heavy lifting, or I may not get involved. I take 2A very seriously. it gives us all a special right that few countries have. Like all rights that get watered down or disappear, once they are gone, they are gone for good. I don’t like seeing a precious right being slandered by hysteria and that is what would happen if those who cherish said right sat by and did nothing. These so called liberal politicians are against guns but they have body guards with guns and many of them have concealed carry themselves. It’s a double standard- their life is worth more than yours and mine. It’s a shame that a good representative will be ousted from power because he or she martyrs themselves by supporting more gun laws when instead they could have kept their position longer and did some good for people getting some tangible improvements that matter. That is why the smart ones avoid this issue like the plague.

Most of the guns I own are investments. They have all retained value much better than any other investment I have made in the last ten years, and most have increased in value, one even beating gold.

@iphigeneia The thing is…this whole gun control scheme was never going to come in the form of utter confiscation. No, it will be in ever so slight increments that the ‘crafters” hope will seem innocuous. That enough people will ignore until it is too late. Tying legislation to other issues is a way to sneak some things by. There is a “slippery slope”. One measure will build on a previous one. it’s not being paranoid, it’s keeping watch over what is going on and where it is headed. If it seems gun proponents are being bullish it it due to the vigilance that cannot let up so not one of these little regulations get into the mix and cause complications down the line that cannot be undone. Anti gun politicians and lobbyists are smart and cleaver playing on the emotions of scared people. The vitriol is heavy on both sides.

@woodcutter “Limits? You want limits? Well for starter we might try enforcing the laws already in place. If that was done alot of things might just get done. Making new laws that do nothing is a waste of time.”
Your tone is nothing but adversarial and irritated. Who said anthing about trying to “stump” anybody? You took the last word of my question and ran with it without looking to see what the thread said.
I did not ask for a political diatribe, and I already noted that you were obviousy not going to read and answer my question. Don’t try to make this something it isn’t. You do not need to engage in a debate with me because I’m not taking a stand about gun cntrol. I had a simple question that I am curious about. I asked you to answer it. You don’ want to, ok fine. I don’t care enough about the issue to take an actual stand. But god did not put you on this earth to satisfy my curiosity, so you see I’m not pushing you to answer. I’m also not interested in having an argument on this thread.

@Trillian adversarial and irritated? Huh? People who act that way use all caps don’t they? I really think I covered what queries you offered. So all I can think is my answers weren’t satisfactory, sorry about that.

Of course ! Thats one of our fundamental rights !

@woodcutter You did not answer my question, you don’t know what the question is.

@WestRiverrat Lol. A rabid racoon is far less dangerous than a crazed psycho human being with a gun! And only humans murder intentionally. They are by far the more violent, unpredictable, and evil animal. The chance of getting killed by a human being toting a gun bent on a murder or robbery is much greater than getting killed by a wild animal. Besides, most killings by wild animals happen in the animal’s territory, when man intrudes in “their” environment, uninvited, or when man acts foolishly and inadvertently angers or tempts an animal.

you must respect the rights of well regulated militia men who calmly stroll through the corridors of schools, colleges and universities systematically killing and maiming those dangerous renegade school kids and teachers who threaten to unravel the very fibre of American Democratic Society….Or the rights of gang-bangers to execute those who dis’ them or stray onto their pissing patch.

Guns don’t kill people, Angry, disaffected, misdirected people with guns do. Why can’t they ever slip into the Halliburton boardroom and Cooley terminate the entire board of directors or something useful for a change?

@mammal LOL i concur. +great answer !

There are some where [crime ]is holding steady and those tend to correspond to those areas with strict gun regs.

There is no such correlation.

Crime rates fell in Chicago over two decades while we had a total handgun ban. Homicide dropped in half.

The same is true in Houston, with lax gun laws.

@jaytkay, which suggests a cultural root to violence.

@MRSHINYSHOES You have never seen wolves in a herd of sheep have you. Or the aftermath of a weasel getting into a hen house. As far as a rabid raccoon being less dangerous than a man with a gun, talk to me after you have been bitten by one.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard somewhere along the line you seem to have gotten the impression that I support the outright ban of certain weapons, or of certain classes of weapons.

I think it was here:

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard My dearest, again, with all due respect, even banning the sale of certain firearms, or banning the sale of certain firearms under certain conditions, is not banning the sale or possession of all firearms under all conditions which is what a firearms prohibition would consist of, and thus does not constitute any sort of de facto firearms prohibition at all, IMHO.

all I said was “even banning the sale of certain firearms or banning the sale of certain weapons under certain conditions, is not banning the sale or possession of all firearms under all conditions” That most certainly should not be construed as me advocating for the ban of any particular weapon. That is making quite a leap.

I also clearly stated that this is where I draw the line here:

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard Where do I draw the line? This is where I draw the line personally. I would like it to be much more difficult, if not extremely difficult to purchase easily concealable, semi-automatic weapons, semi-automatic handguns. There is not so much crime in the U.S. that your average law abiding home owner and gun enthusiast needs to be able to go and get one or ten at the drop of the hat. I found it absolutely appalling that, in reaction to the massacre at Virginia Tech so many people seemed to think: “Well, obviously, this is proof that what we need to do is allow 18 year old college students who are away from home for the first time in their lives and given to binge drinking, well we need to make sure that they can defend themselves by getting rid of that draconian and outdated ban on concealed weapons on college campuses.” That’s complete bullshit. Why are more guns always the answer to crimes committed with guns? Why isn’t the answer that maybe we should make it a lot harder for people to buy semi-automatic handguns, which they can simply stick in their pockets and which allow them to efficiently slaughter 32 people in how long? That’s where I draw the line but I am not a big fan of the slippery slope arguments and not you, but the NRA and many of their members are extremely fond of them. Slippery slope arguments are reactionary, and paranoid and not particularly reasonable.

My argument was only about making certain weapons “much more difficult, if not extremely difficult to purchase.” That is most certainly not advocating for any outright ban or prohibition of any weapon or class of weapons.

@iphigeneia said: Furthermore, the right to have guns is not unquestionable. Um , yes it is, at least here in the US. At least according to our founding fathers and SCOTUS. It is settled law.

@WestRiverrat And talk to me when you’ve witnessed a crazed hostage taker with a gun threatening to kill former fellow employees. I saw it happen last year at a car dealership where I live. I’d much rather face a little rabid racoon than that psycho. No little racoon is going to do as much damage as a crazed disgruntled psycho with a semi-automatic! :P

@jayktay; There are some where [crime ]is holding steady and those tend to correspond to those areas with strict gun regs.

There is no such correlation.- Yes there is. I can only suggest our information came from different sources. Mine comes from FBI stats. I would hope they would really know.

@Trillian Ok I give up. What was your question?

@woodcutter As I said in my first answer, I disagree with your constitution with regards to the right to bear arms.

@MRSHINYSHOES Never faced a crazed hostage taker in a car dealership. Do muslim terrorists count? They had guns and RPGs and I didn’t, I will never again by choice be without one.

@WestRiverrat I will discuss in PM and try to make you see the irrationality of your position.