Various Stances on Gun Control Policy

Posts that are locked but open for perusal.

Moderator: phpBB2 - Administrators

How much control of privately owned firearms should we havein the USA?

None at all ( Bring on the Rocket Launcher!)
6
21%
Handgun licenses
1
3%
Licenses for ALL guns
13
45%
Nothing except hunting guns
6
21%
Spitball shooters make me nervous
3
10%
 
Total votes : 29

Postby LibraLabRat on Sun Mar 19, 2006 10:08 pm

HEre is a good article I found, that gives both sides.

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript210.html

One point they make:

Cap, you brought up that we licence cars but not guns. Do you realize that if we implemented the same level of control on guns as we do cars, there would be a huge DEREGULATION of guns in this country?

So lets have the local BATF open up with a gun licence bureau. Or hell, lets just put it in with the DMV? Use the infrastructure already in place....until the first confiscation sweep happens, that is.

ANd before you start making accusations of paranoia...hear me out.

First, the government has a huge centralized database of all gun owners, and what guns they own, and where they keep them at their fingertips. If the BATF decided to pick a particular gun owner and take his guns away, what protection does he have, and what privacy does this afford gun owners from unlawful search and seizure?

None.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby LibraLabRat on Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:46 am

Auntie Dee Dee wrote:
LLR, if you encountered a perp attempting to steal who simply faded to the open door and ran, you wouldn't shoot, correct?

The weapon is not to protect property, it is to protect family, human life.


Exactly. Every time I have had to draw my weapon, no shots were fired, and lives were saved.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby PyreDruid on Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:51 am

FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

IN DEFENSE SOLELY OF YOUR POLITICAL RIGHTS.

because it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers


*agree*

As for the site license thing I saw mentioned earlier, that would never work. Not only for reasons already mentioned, but if you brought it to a range, and they found you on the way there or back, how could you prove it. Its way too much regulation.

I don't agree that the 2nd amendment allows for gun collections, or hunting, or even defense of your life from criminals invading your house.

But that doesn't mean that I feel we shouldn't be allowed to use them for those reasons. Since this is such a big deal, why aren't we trying to clarify your rights to all those other things with a new amendment instead of wasting time with marriage amendments and other wasteful debates.

Who else supports a clarified new amendment guaranteeing your right to own a gun.
If literal creation is true and the world is only 5-10k years old, it just "looks older", God is Satan...

theres more to it, ask me if your curious
PyreDruid
Gnocchetti Galley Slave
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:34 am
Location: Richmond Va

Postby Dr. Otis Lansa on Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:08 pm

FireFox wrote:one thing that occured to me:
realising that this removes a lot of the 'street' aspect of self defence
in gun control debates has anyone thought of 'site' licences for handguns.
basically you can keep a handgun on the listed site (e.g. your land) or move it to a regustered firearms range (if you are a member) other than that hand gun carrying is strongly discouraged

Steve


This is pretty similar to Canadian handgun laws I think... moving a handgun between your home and the range requires that the gun is unloaded and in a locked case (AFAIK). Stopping for groceries on the way home is discouraged. There's no real 'site' licence, but you can't carry them freely.

Hunting rifles are less restricted.
Image
User avatar
Dr. Otis Lansa
Mystic of Meatball
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby Capellini on Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:08 pm

Qwertyuiopasd wrote:I'm not sure what you mean Cap. what are pollitical rights? rights to go into pollitics or something? and I really don't get the bolded statement. as far as I can tell, its saying that the 2nd ammendment is just a guideline or warning for usurpers or something. I know I'm interperting that wrong.

but his point is, the SUPREME FREAKING COURT says that the SECOND AMMENDMETN to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA says that YOU CAN HAVE A GUN!!!!

whatever your interpretation, its apparently not the supreme courts interpretation. and whose job is it to interpret the law?


Political rights are stuff like the right to vote, the right to assemble peacebly, the right to adress grievances to the gov't . . .

Apparantly you're not reading clearly, because according to this particular article, my interpretation is exactly that of the Supreme Court's.
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby Capellini on Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:10 pm

LibraLabRat wrote:HEre is a good article I found, that gives both sides.

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript210.html

One point they make:

Cap, you brought up that we licence cars but not guns. Do you realize that if we implemented the same level of control on guns as we do cars, there would be a huge DEREGULATION of guns in this country?

So lets have the local BATF open up with a gun licence bureau. Or hell, lets just put it in with the DMV? Use the infrastructure already in place....until the first confiscation sweep happens, that is.

ANd before you start making accusations of paranoia...hear me out.

First, the government has a huge centralized database of all gun owners, and what guns they own, and where they keep them at their fingertips. If the BATF decided to pick a particular gun owner and take his guns away, what protection does he have, and what privacy does this afford gun owners from unlawful search and seizure?

None.


I didn't say the same level, I said more. Guns should be more regulated than cars, more regulated than motorcycles, more regulated than bananas, more regulated than stage I narcotics . . .
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby Qwertyuiopasd on Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:17 pm

they're already regulated more than cars. IF they weren't [insert LLR's consquences].

and YES, i DID read it wrong. I have NO clue what you said. thats why I said "I'm not sure what you mean" please clarify what you're saying.
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple' :moon:


Any statistical increase in the usage of the :idiot: emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.
User avatar
Qwertyuiopasd
Admirable Admiral Qwerty
 
Posts: 14349
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby Capellini on Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:46 pm

That people have the right to own a gun as part of a well regulated militia, and NOT for the interest of self-defense against private citizens.
True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Capellini
Capolean Bone-apart
 
Posts: 4185
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: The State of Denial

Postby Qwertyuiopasd on Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:57 pm

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'm pretty sure theres an implied and before "The right of the people to keep and bear arms". otherwise it dosen't make grammatical sense to me.
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple' :moon:


Any statistical increase in the usage of the :idiot: emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.
User avatar
Qwertyuiopasd
Admirable Admiral Qwerty
 
Posts: 14349
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby PyreDruid on Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:09 pm

I'm pretty sure theres an implied and before "The right of the people to keep and bear arms". otherwise it dosen't make grammatical sense to me.


Makes grammatical sense to me.
If literal creation is true and the world is only 5-10k years old, it just "looks older", God is Satan...

theres more to it, ask me if your curious
PyreDruid
Gnocchetti Galley Slave
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:34 am
Location: Richmond Va

Postby Qwertyuiopasd on Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:30 pm

Qwertyuiopasd wrote: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.


its a list

a well regulated militia, neccisary for the security of a free state.
the right to own and bear arms.

the items in the list shall not be infringed.

but shouldn't there be an AND before the last item on the list? or, take out the being neccesary bit:

A well regulated Militia the right of the people to keepa nd bear arms...

not grammatically correct.
daftbeaker wrote:But if I stop bugging you I'll have to go back to arguing with Qwerty about whether beauty is truth and precisely what we both mean by 'purple' :moon:


Any statistical increase in the usage of the :idiot: emoticon since becoming Admin should not be considered significant, meaningful, or otherwise cause for worry.
User avatar
Qwertyuiopasd
Admirable Admiral Qwerty
 
Posts: 14349
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:38 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Postby LibraLabRat on Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:51 pm

No self defense? SCREW THAT.

Like I said before, wanna be a victim, have fun in therapy.

I would rather have a dead burglar at my feet than a raped nine year old daughter. Sorry, my world is kind of black and white.
'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."
-James Morrow
User avatar
LibraLabRat
Humble Hermit
 
Posts: 1663
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:29 am
Location: Denham Springs, LA

Postby teripie on Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:42 pm

LibraLabRat wrote: Sorry, my world is kind of black and white.


And full of fear huh? I decided a few years back to stop being afraid. I'm not concerned with being mugged, or attacked in my own home or on the street. I don't fear the people in "bad" neighborhoods when I visit them. I don't worry about terrorist dive bombing the mall while I'm shopping there. I never think about the possibility of some kid going off the deep end and shooting up the school. I eat and drink whatever I feel I'm in the mood for, or can afford. And death holds no terrors for me.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not totally stupid. I just stopped being paranoid and that leads to a better sense of self. Of course I'm careful. I haven't tried a Drano cocktail and I don't throw rocks at strangers.
The biggest threat to myself is traffic. Lotta loony drivers out there doing stupid things. Drive defensively or die sooner than expected.
-----(\ /)------
-----(o.o)-----
----(> <)-----
This is Bunny.
Bunny, as cute and cuddley as he may appear, is bent on world domination.
To achieve this he has decided to start by taking over teh intarweb, a step towards his ultimate goal.
To help him complete his quest and therefore ensure bunny domination, copy and paste him into your sig
User avatar
teripie
Birthday Scribe
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:06 am
Location: Lost

Postby Dr. Otis Lansa on Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:54 pm

Bah, same deal up here in the last election. The Liberals pushed the "ban handguns" issue, which only cemented the type of voters that would never vote for Harper anyways, and further alienated the voters that had given up voting Liberal.

Can't we just chop off the trigger fingers of those convicted of violent crimes involving firearms? Too cruel and unusual?
Image
User avatar
Dr. Otis Lansa
Mystic of Meatball
 
Posts: 2426
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Canuckistan

Postby teripie on Mon Mar 20, 2006 8:58 pm

I have no problem with the general public arming themselves to the teeth. As I stated earlier, I just plain don't care. The democrats are doomed if they think they should make an issue of gun control. It's a 100% losing issue. Look at what the gun lobby did after 9/11. They got congress to back down on investigating the terrorist's or suspected terrorist's gun ownership. Those records are sealed tighter than any lock box Al Gore could build.
LLR earlier stated that the government has a list of some sort of every legally owned gun in the country and who owns it. I dunno if that's the case, but if it is, that list is currently totally useless. No one, and I mean no one, is allowed access to it.
-----(\ /)------
-----(o.o)-----
----(> <)-----
This is Bunny.
Bunny, as cute and cuddley as he may appear, is bent on world domination.
To achieve this he has decided to start by taking over teh intarweb, a step towards his ultimate goal.
To help him complete his quest and therefore ensure bunny domination, copy and paste him into your sig
User avatar
teripie
Birthday Scribe
 
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:06 am
Location: Lost

PreviousNext

Return to Locked Posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron