The Gun Control Debate

[SMOKE 1,426]

Sometime, it would be fun to compare old gun control threads to each other and to this one. My bet would be that all the comments would be about the same.

i'm bettin you're right. but, then again the same could be said for most topics in the OT.....we're a stubborn bunch

[DeadPoolX 9]

I suppose my issue with someone saying that we should "ban guns" because people aren't responsible with them is that people, in general, aren't responsible with a lot of potentially dangerous things too. As someone else said in this thread, many people aren't responsible drinkers, so should we go ahead and reinstitute prohibition? How many people in the U.S. would fall under the category of "irresponsible driver" when on the road today as well? Should we ban cars too?

Just how far does it go?

People will always be irresponsible with something or another. That's just how we are. It'd be nice if we weren't and actually thought ahead a little more, but far too many people just don't do that.

The government cannot be our parent and/or babysitter. The U.S. was formed to get away from oppressive regimes in the first place and empowering the government while weakening the citizenry would be just asking for trouble somewhere down the line.

Having said that, I do believe something needs to be done. It's become apparent that either the current laws aren't working or they aren't being enforced properly. Regardless, change needs to occur, but not at the expense of an original constitutional amendment.

Edited February 15, 2008 by DeadPoolX

[Ban Hammer 14,272]

Semiautomatic makes the gun less deadly then?

yes. lower rate of fire.

Semiautomatic or automatic, neither of those weapons were around when the Constitution were written.

neither were cars and computers. should we ban them too?

Not by much.

Cars are a mode of transport. Computers store data. Guns shoot.

Next?

so we ban things that shoot? ok, get rid of that laser pointer. and any air compressers as they shoot air. got a water cannon or fire hydrant? they shoot water.

becca, i've fired auto and semi auto. there is a significant difference in rate of fire. don't give me that not by much nonsense.

[Ban Hammer 14,272]

Sometime, it would be fun to compare old gun control threads to each other and to this one. My bet would be that all the comments would be about the same.

How's your headache?

i guess we know what rey didn't get on valentine's day

[garya505 2]

Sometime, it would be fun to compare old gun control threads to each other and to this one. My bet would be that all the comments would be about the same.

How's your headache?

i guess we know what rey didn't get on valentine's day

[PlatyPius 5]

Can't believe I've missed this one...

I love guns. I own guns (although I keep them elsewhere since Mags isn't too fond of guns). I've owned guns since I was 16. I've never shot anyone, nor have I ever discovered one of my guns leaving the house on its own and shooting someone.

When I lived in Wyoming, I carried a handgun with me in my backpack when I'd go hiking. Lots of animals that could get mean if you startled them. I had a gun at work when I worked near I-65 in Franklin, IN. At the time (not sure about now), I-65 was the major drug route from Florida to Chicago. I worked 3rd shift. A gun was mandatory.

Do I have a personal need for an automatic weapon? No. Do I own one? Nope. I don't even have a semi-auto. I like revolvers. I've never had a revolver jam - can't say the same about a 9mm. If I NEED my gun, I want to know that it's going to do what is needed.

The only scenario I can foresee where I would want an automatic would be if our government went completely to sh!t and I had to defend myself and my family from some unwarranted Ruby Ridge-style raid. While I don't trust our government one bit, I don't see that kind of thing happening soon in BFE Indiana.

Guns were invented to kill people and animals. Before there were guns, there were swords, knives, rocks, spears, arrows, etc. Humans will ALWAYS find a way to kill each other. I could run over someone with a car, put a bomb on their toilet, stab them with a stick, cut their throat with a piece of shale.... guns are merely a convenience, not some kind of evil that has led to people killing each other.

[john & jean 37]

HEY I just counted the ayes out numer the nays by two full 30 ROUND MAGAZINES!!

[peejay 327]

Can't believe I've missed this one...

I love guns. I own guns (although I keep them elsewhere since Mags isn't too fond of guns). I've owned guns since I was 16. I've never shot anyone, nor have I ever discovered one of my guns leaving the house on its own and shooting someone.

When I lived in Wyoming, I carried a handgun with me in my backpack when I'd go hiking. Lots of animals that could get mean if you startled them. I had a gun at work when I worked near I-65 in Franklin, IN. At the time (not sure about now), I-65 was the major drug route from Florida to Chicago. I worked 3rd shift. A gun was mandatory.

Do I have a personal need for an automatic weapon? No. Do I own one? Nope. I don't even have a semi-auto. I like revolvers. I've never had a revolver jam - can't say the same about a 9mm. If I NEED my gun, I want to know that it's going to do what is needed.

The only scenario I can foresee where I would want an automatic would be if our government went completely to sh!t and I had to defend myself and my family from some unwarranted Ruby Ridge-style raid. While I don't trust our government one bit, I don't see that kind of thing happening soon in BFE Indiana.

Guns were invented to kill people and animals. Before there were guns, there were swords, knives, rocks, spears, arrows, etc. Humans will ALWAYS find a way to kill each other. I could run over someone with a car, put a bomb on their toilet, stab them with a stick, cut their throat with a piece of shale.... guns are merely a convenience, not some kind of evil that has led to people killing each other.

That's about my experience with guns. I've owned them my whole life. I was brought up with guns and hunting. My dad and uncles were war vets and I was instructed at a young age about gun etiquette. America isn't ready to give up our guns. I'm not ready to give up my guns. I won't give up my guns. Why should I? I'm not doing anything wrong! If you don't want guns...don't own any!

[rebeccajo 14]

I am still wondering how you propose we catch terrorist without being able to randomly monitor them. I just saw on CNBC how it takes approximately 200 hours and 100 pages worth of work to setup a warrant through the courts. Therefore it would take about 114 years to get permission to monitor about 5,000 suspects.

If it were only one person filing for all the warrants and one judge issuing them, yes. So the argument is non-sensical.

So you don't see anything wrong with wasting thousand of scarce resources in the court room but have a problem with computers listening in on people's calls. It is hard enough, almost impossible, to catch someone even if law enforcement had no rules to follow let alone forcing them to build a case for each wire tap. It is actually ####### like this which contributes to this cat and mouse game police play with criminals here. This sort of anti-law enforcement attitude that allows the mafia, organized crime, gangs, child molesters etc to get away with hurting others because they know the authorities have about 1001 rules to follow; rather than actually do their job and catch the bad guys.

Now that I think about it blaming it on guns are just a cheap cop out. The mafia would have been hunted down like rabid animals abroad but not in America. Thanks to people like yourself they are actually protected by their rights. I mean, #### the victim right. As long as we uphold a persons individual right. Pretty much like this killer's right to choose to kill others.

This goes back to my earlier point. The 2nd Amendment is misinterpreted and outdated right, but the misuse of innocent until proven guilty is okay.

The 'scarce resources' in the courtroom you refer to is called 'due process'. If due process comes under fire in this country, a semi-automatic weapon isn't what you are going to need to save your a$$.

Individual rights is what sets this nation apart from others. The very thing you are foaming at the mouth over is your individual right to own a gun.

[rebeccajo 14]

Semiautomatic makes the gun less deadly then?

yes. lower rate of fire.

Semiautomatic or automatic, neither of those weapons were around when the Constitution were written.

neither were cars and computers. should we ban them too?

Not by much.

Cars are a mode of transport. Computers store data. Guns shoot.

Next?

so we ban things that shoot? ok, get rid of that laser pointer. and any air compressers as they shoot air. got a water cannon or fire hydrant? they shoot water.

becca, i've fired auto and semi auto. there is a significant difference in rate of fire. don't give me that not by much nonsense.

"Nonsense" is the presumption that you have a right to own any type of firearm they can manufacture. Or any number of them you choose. The Second Amendment doesn't give you that right. If States choose to limit either, they are well within their legal bounds.

I'll be all for limiting the ownerhsip of laser pointers, air compressors, water cannons or fire hydrants whenever I see a rash of killings using those things.

[GaryC 7]

Semiautomatic makes the gun less deadly then?

yes. lower rate of fire.

Semiautomatic or automatic, neither of those weapons were around when the Constitution were written.

neither were cars and computers. should we ban them too?

Not by much.

Cars are a mode of transport. Computers store data. Guns shoot.

Next?

so we ban things that shoot? ok, get rid of that laser pointer. and any air compressers as they shoot air. got a water cannon or fire hydrant? they shoot water.

becca, i've fired auto and semi auto. there is a significant difference in rate of fire. don't give me that not by much nonsense.

"Nonsense" is the presumption that you have a right to own any type of firearm they can manufacture. Or any number of them you choose. The Second Amendment doesn't give you that right. If States choose to limit either, they are well within their legal bounds.

I'll be all for limiting the ownerhsip of laser pointers, air compressors, water cannons or fire hydrants whenever I see a rash of killings using those things.

Then you should advocate banning cars. More people are killed by cars than guns.

[rebeccajo 14]

Semiautomatic makes the gun less deadly then?

yes. lower rate of fire.

Semiautomatic or automatic, neither of those weapons were around when the Constitution were written.

neither were cars and computers. should we ban them too?

Not by much.

Cars are a mode of transport. Computers store data. Guns shoot.

Next?

so we ban things that shoot? ok, get rid of that laser pointer. and any air compressers as they shoot air. got a water cannon or fire hydrant? they shoot water.

becca, i've fired auto and semi auto. there is a significant difference in rate of fire. don't give me that not by much nonsense.

"Nonsense" is the presumption that you have a right to own any type of firearm they can manufacture. Or any number of them you choose. The Second Amendment doesn't give you that right. If States choose to limit either, they are well within their legal bounds.

I'll be all for limiting the ownerhsip of laser pointers, air compressors, water cannons or fire hydrants whenever I see a rash of killings using those things.

Then you should advocate banning cars. More people are killed by cars than guns.

Could happen.

You don't have a Constitutional right to drive.

[GaryC 7]

Semiautomatic makes the gun less deadly then?

yes. lower rate of fire.

Semiautomatic or automatic, neither of those weapons were around when the Constitution were written.

neither were cars and computers. should we ban them too?

Not by much.

Cars are a mode of transport. Computers store data. Guns shoot.

Next?

so we ban things that shoot? ok, get rid of that laser pointer. and any air compressers as they shoot air. got a water cannon or fire hydrant? they shoot water.

becca, i've fired auto and semi auto. there is a significant difference in rate of fire. don't give me that not by much nonsense.

"Nonsense" is the presumption that you have a right to own any type of firearm they can manufacture. Or any number of them you choose. The Second Amendment doesn't give you that right. If States choose to limit either, they are well within their legal bounds.

I'll be all for limiting the ownerhsip of laser pointers, air compressors, water cannons or fire hydrants whenever I see a rash of killings using those things.

Then you should advocate banning cars. More people are killed by cars than guns.

Could happen.

You don't have a Constitutional right to drive.

I think everything should be legal. Nanny states suck.

[PlatyPius 5]

I think more people are killed by bathtubs than by guns....

OUTLAW BATHTUBS!!!

[rebeccajo 14]

I think more people are killed by bathtubs than by guns....

OUTLAW BATHTUBS!!!

It's Friday night. What have you been smoking?