Should guns get banned?

[Charade]

My beef is now as it has been that a lot of the posters here feel my long arms should be banned as well and that is just going to far.

Handguns first.

Then long arms.

That's "their" plan.

 

[AllyandJack]

Where have all the gun nuts gone?



Rich::

Hey....not all people against banning guns are right wing neo-con nut jobs.

But, I have to ask a question. I hate to ask it, but I think it's fair. Before I ask it, I just want to say that I am pro-choice, I fully support the right of gay people to marry, I don't think prayers of any specific denomenation should be said in schools and I haven't made up my mind about the death penalty (some days I think it's a great idea...others, I'm not so sure).

But....how can you support a gun ban and not a ban on abortion? Abortion is killing or ending life abruptly. It's a procedure that has the sole purpose of ending a life.

I know conservatives are often asked how they reconcile their anti-abortion/pro-dealth penalty stance. I guess I was just wondering why ban guns and not abortion?

I don't support a ban on either. I don't own a gun and I've never had an abortion, but I support someone's choice to do either.

 

[chobie]

Hey....not all people against banning guns are right wing neo-con nut jobs.

But, I have to ask a question. I hate to ask it, but I think it's fair. Before I ask it, I just want to say that I am pro-choice, I fully support the right of gay people to marry, I don't think prayers of any specific denomenation should be said in schools and I haven't made up my mind about the death penalty (some days I think it's a great idea...others, I'm not so sure).

But....how can you support a gun ban and not a ban on abortion? Abortion is killing or ending life abruptly. It's a procedure that has the sole purpose of ending a life.

I know conservatives are often asked how they reconcile their anti-abortion/pro-dealth penalty stance. I guess I was just wondering why ban guns and not abortion?

I don't support a ban on either. I don't own a gun and I've never had an abortion, but I support someone's choice to do either.

Same reason why "we" don't compare infanticide to abortion. An embryo is a potential for life, it only becomes a life after it is viable. Abortion of an embryo is not murder or manslaughter.

 

[BostonTigger]

And how would you get the CRIMINALS to give up their guns?

Why, we would ask nicely of coures....NOT! If the U.S. Gov. wants to take my gun away from me, then they can pry it from my cold dead hand. So just in case you missed it, NO, GUNS SHOULD NOT BE BANNED!!!!!!

 

[AllyandJack]

Same reason why "we" don't compare infanticide to abortion. An embryo is a potential for life, it only becomes a life after it is viable. Abortion of an embryo is not murder or manslaughter.

So, you would support a ban on abortion after, say, the 28th week when the embryo/fetus/baby could survive on its own?

I guess I'm having the same problem as I have with the conservatives who say stay out of my wallet, but let me regulate what you do with your body and in your bedroom. It all seems contradictory.

I guess that's why I'm not a member of any political party.

 

[chobie]

So, you would support a ban on abortion after, say, the 28th week when the embryo/fetus/baby could survive on its own?

I guess I'm having the same problem as I have with the conservatives who say stay out of my wallet, but let me regulate what you do with your body and in your bedroom. It all seems contradictory.

I guess that's why I'm not a member of any political party.

I personally believe after the first trimester abortions should be legal if their are health issues for the mother and/or the baby has serious problems. This should be a decision left between the woman and her doctor.

 

[ToyStory Fan]

You people who think handguns should be banned are absolutely delusional. How does banning handguns help anything at this point other than protecting criminals???? I think we should be looking at our judicial system more than the law abiding person who wants to carry a concealed weapon. Do you know how many lives would've been saved had a citizen carrying a legally owned/registered firearm when one of these pshycopaths goes off on a shooting spree. Take a look back at the LIRR shooter - he had time to reload the gun - give me a break I'm on that train and carrying that guy gets off 1 round max then he hits the dirt - and you know what if my life or my friend's life or a family member's life is in danger ...there is no shoot to disarm/disable crap - you thought about taking my life now I'm taking yours.

It's time for people in this country to stop being so politically correct and giving the streets and our freedoms to criminals...I'm tired of hearing that people kill someone - they admit it, but because they admit it or "cooperated" as they like to put it they get off with a lesser charge...it's not the guns that need to be banned, it's the attorneys who exploit the judicial system because they can. It's the attorneys who jump up and exclaim that a criminal has civil rights...no civil rights are not an entitlement, what about the victims...what about their civil rights, oh that doesn't matter anymore they're dead.

Do you really think that crimes are committed with legally owned firearms? By banning guns you take away one of the other ways that crimes are stopped...do you really think our police forces can protect and serve all the time everywhere...not a chance and until that time it happens to you or a member of your family (that a cop wasn't there to protect them), you will believe that the cops are there for you when you need them.

A friend of mine lives in NC, and one of the guys he works with carries...someone tried to carjack him a few weeeks ago, he pulled out his registered firearm and told the guy "looks like you picked the wrong car today" the guy fled...bad situation averted. I suppose many of you will say it's not worth risking your life over a car...ok fine...same guy but instead, say the guy doesn't want your car, say he wants your wife, your daughter is it still okay then????

A few months ago in LI, a jewelery store owner was opening/closing (I forget which) up his store - he was approached by 2 men trying to rob him..he shot one and the other and a believed 3rd suspect fled...I suppose he should hav elet them rob him because he has insurance - but then his insurance premiums and ours go thru the roof too.

When is enough enough? I can't even believe you people have gotten me to rant like this on this topic. I can't understand how people can be so ignorant to the fact that crimes don't happen because people own guns...just as many crimes are foiled because people have guns - you just don't hear about them as much.

I've said my peace - oh and I'm glad I have my guns, my family feels safer knowing I have my guns.

 

[chobie]

[

think we should be looking at our judicial system more than the law abiding person who wants to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[JimB.]

I'd also ban hunting rifles if I could since I really don't believe in hunting for sport, but that's another argument.

And it's a bad one.

I don't speed, but I don't call for the ban of fast cars.

Don't drink, but don't call for the ban on alcohol, Ditto with cigarettes.

Heck, I don't like Lacrosse or Hockey, so let's ban hockey sticks and lacrosse wickets.

Cars, drugs. alcohol, cigarettes, lightning strikes, heart disease, cancer all kill more than guns.

It's "easier" to kill with a gun? In all my years as a Paramedic, I have been to literally DOZENS of automobile related deaths. I have been to 1 shooting death (& I cover a low income, drug filled area of my commnuity)

There is a segment in society that distrusts government. Some more vocally & radically than others. Removing of firearms is one of the steps government will use to crush dissent & remove our freedom (so some say). People want government out of their lives and bedrooms, but want Big Brother to stick his nose in my gun cabinet (Just an aside, I do NOT own any firerms).

Hold people accountable for inappropriate use of guns? Absolutely. With A Vengeance.

Take them away?

There is an old adage about "cold dead fingers" that I think is somewhat appropriate (if somewhat overstated).

 

[dcentity2000]

Cars have a regular, undeniable use.

Guns are leisure items and don't. They're just nice to practice with.

Besides, heart attacks kill more than guns. It doesn't invalidate the argument. It's just a fact.




Rich::

 

[DisDuck]

Where to begin?? The quest to ban 'guns' is not something thought up by left-wing/liberal people. This idea has been around for well over a hundred years. Let us look at history especially those who keep pointing to the 2nd amendment as justification for personal ownership of guns.

The framers of the 2nd amendment has as their template Europe where the monarchies had private armies. They were trying to balance the Federal powers against the State powers. The 2nd amendment was written in these contexts, taken out of context today. The militia back in 1782 is the national guard today. Anybody ever wonder why when there is a diaster like 'hurricanes' that the National Guard is activited but not the Regular Army. That is because by The Constitution and law The Regular Army cannot act within our borders (don't bring up being invaded..not my point). Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion tried just that and got his head handed to him. Ever wonder why US does not have a national police force. The FBI can only get involved on Federal Crimes. Again the framers did not want a 'federal' presence like in Europe.

Now look at the 2nd amendment in this light. The opening statement contains 'commas' not periods. The whole sentence must be looked at as one thought (grammatically). The idea was to allow citizens of the Militia to carry arms when part of that group. In The Federalist Papers some argued that it extended beyond just arming state militia but the majority thought of it in the context of state militias not as we think today of ordinary citizens. The framers also knew that most 'country' folk owned a rifle because hunting was a big source of food but that 'weapon' was not carried when going shopping in the 'city'.

Fast Forward to the 'wild' west. During the westward expansion gun carrying became more common place like getting dressed in the morning. However, there were towns that banned sidearms on the streets. So 'banning' existed in the past and was accepted as a show of how civilized 'we' were becoming. The streets would be safer for our wives and children from the rowdy cowboy.

Now to the safety issue. Those who say I need a gun to protect my family yet you practice safe gun ownership by locking it up and keep the ammo in a separate location. Well what kind of protection does it afford you if someone breaks into your home and you have to first unlock the cabinet to get your gun then go to another cabinet to get the ammo and load your gun. Think you can do that fast enough to prevent harm to you or your family?

The NRA is first and foremost a political organization who, I personally, believe (based on a strict construtionist view of the 2nd amendment - state militia being armed) misuse the 2nd amendment. They make it sound like Big Brother Government is out to take freedoms from you yet they also do not want safety features added to guns either. So maybe they are schills for the gun manufacturers??

Looking at types of guns and owners I come to this conclusion.
1) If you are a hunter or sport shooter then the types of guns you will own would be suitable for that activity and when not used stored safely. So owning a rifle, sport pistol, shotgun is not an issue with me. I seriously doubt you would be walking around town with it.
2) Gun collectors can be equated to antique collectors so why not have the guns plugged. Are you really going to take that 16th century French Wheel-lock and shoot it? So no problems with ownership for me here either.
3) Hand-guns in generally. If you are not going to keep it loaded and right within reach 24/7 then for what purpose do you own it? For protection, see above for my reasons on this being impractical. Therefore, why not require trigger locks and biometric senses (WDW uses biometrics on admission). This way no one can 'accidently' use your gun. Yet the NRA is against these devices. Why?? Because it will raise the cost and that is 'bad'??
4) Assault Weapons, etc. These types of weapons have no place except in the armed forces. Who is going Deer hunting with an uzi or m-16 or ak-47? Why would you need an automatic weapon to fire x-bullets in 1 minute? If you are a collector and want an up-to-date item in your collection then what is wrong if it is plugged and no fire-pin. It is just for show anyway.

I am a Libertarian, not some 'liberal' or 'conservative' nut. I, however, take the 2nd amendment literally which means arming is for a Militia; but if you want to own a gun then there is nothing wrong with some sensable controls.

This has been a long reply. I hope it is read in its entirety and if anyone quotes from it that they do it in context to my theme. That is certain guns need to be banned from private non-military ownership; that others should be made unfirable for collectors and that safety devices be attached so that accidental (unlawful) use curtailed. Finally, I am totally against the 'concealed' weapons laws as I believe it will lead to settling arguements by firepower, ex. road rage.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Should the average person be banned from having guns? Yes. There is no need for a gun. And the points where people won't be able to defend themselves? Why do you need a gun to defend yourself? There's otherthings that you can do to defend yourself if someone was attacking you.

Not if you are being attacked by someone armed with a gun.

 

[JimB.]

So owning a rifle, sport pistol, shotgun is not an issue with me. I seriously doubt you would be walking around town with it.

But what about the recent case up north where a hunter killed 5 other hunters over a dispute about a tree stand?

Then comes the arguement to take hunting rifles. ANY weapon can be misused, be it a pistol , rifle, shotgun or butter knife.

Better to hold those that do ACCOUNTABLE.

 

[septbride2002]

I'm confused. First you state that smart criminals will go after easy targets(why are they easy?) then you say that you doubt they would care if the other person has a gun.

Can you see the reason for my confusion?

IMO, if a criminal walked into a 7-11 to rob it and saw the clerk was openly carrying a firearm, do you think they would still try to rob the place?

I don't.

I've already noted that my post was a bit confusing - there is no need to drudge it up again. But thanks, no really I appreciate it.

There are 2 types of criminals in my opinion.
1) Stupid - typically rob bank tellers and may get $1000 to $2000 in a building where there are tons of cameras inside and outside and the penalty is major jain time. High Risk, High Punishment. Rob houses and leave fingerprints, hold up people at ATMs where there are cameras, rob convience store. In other words - petty theives. No I do not believe that the chance the victim is armed would stop these individuals because they are to stupid to think about it.

2) Smart Criminals - the ones who actually put thought into what they are doing. Yes they more then likely prey on those that will more then likely be unarmed. The little old lady, the young college student, the 10 year old boy. Of course their crimes are usually more serious as well and this is when you get into murder with a whole different weapon. They go looking for victims - so unless every person in the country decides to carry a gun - this type of criminal will always have prey. Examples of this would be the guy who kidnapped Elisabeth Smart.

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

Ya think? Do you know someone that could get you one? I sure don't and I'm not about to go looking for someone who can "hook me up" either.

It's harder for me, Mr. Law Abiding Citizen to get a hand gun than it is for Mr. Joe Drug Dealer.

And guess what my plans for using my gun are?

If you wanted to get a gun illegally - you could. There are ways. You just have to know where to go. So yes, I could get a gun faster illegally then I could legally. Which is my point - we could at least try and make it harder for them.

~Amanda

 

[septbride2002]

Not if you are being attacked by someone armed with a gun.

True - but the victim has a better chance of running ( harder to hit a moving target) then firing back and killing the assailant. And more then likely should the two open gun fire - some innocent bystander or a cop will be shot before either of the two engaging.

~Amanda

 

[wvrevy]

Really?

How about alcohol?

How about drugs?

How about cars?

Those are all "personal" freedoms that are *more* likely to kill innocent bystanders.

No, as Chad stated and as I have many times, handguns primary purpose is to kill people. Yes, they can also be used to shoot other things (animals, targets), but that is not what they are designed for, and there are other guns more suited to that purpose.

All of the things you posted above have as their primary purpose some other use. Can they be used to kill ? Sure, but so can virtually anything else.

But go ahead with your absurd argument that "they" (meaning me and those that think like I do about guns) are going after baseball bats and cars next. It just makes any other point you may make look foolish in comparison.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Yes, ban guns! LOL! We have too many gun toting idiots out there who have no idea what they are doing. How many misfirings have we seen? I know I've seen and heard quite afew!

 

[Miss Jasmine]

True - but the victim has a better chance of running ( harder to hit a moving target) then firing back and killing the assailant. And more then likely should the two open gun fire - some innocent bystander or a cop will be shot before either of the two engaging.

~Amanda

But really how often does this happen? Not very often. I think we are getting a little far fetched in scenarios.

 

[meandtheguys2]

Where to begin?? The quest to ban 'guns' is not something thought up by left-wing/liberal people. This idea has been around for well over a hundred years. Let us look at history especially those who keep pointing to the 2nd amendment as justification for personal ownership of guns.

The framers of the 2nd amendment has as their template Europe where the monarchies had private armies. They were trying to balance the Federal powers against the State powers. The 2nd amendment was written in these contexts, taken out of context today. The militia back in 1782 is the national guard today. Anybody ever wonder why when there is a diaster like 'hurricanes' that the National Guard is activited but not the Regular Army. That is because by The Constitution and law The Regular Army cannot act within our borders (don't bring up being invaded..not my point). Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion tried just that and got his head handed to him. Ever wonder why US does not have a national police force. The FBI can only get involved on Federal Crimes. Again the framers did not want a 'federal' presence like in Europe.

Now look at the 2nd amendment in this light. The opening statement contains 'commas' not periods. The whole sentence must be looked at as one thought (grammatically). The idea was to allow citizens of the Militia to carry arms when part of that group. In The Federalist Papers some argued that it extended beyond just arming state militia but the majority thought of it in the context of state militias not as we think today of ordinary citizens. The framers also knew that most 'country' folk owned a rifle because hunting was a big source of food but that 'weapon' was not carried when going shopping in the 'city'.

Fast Forward to the 'wild' west. During the westward expansion gun carrying became more common place like getting dressed in the morning. However, there were towns that banned sidearms on the streets. So 'banning' existed in the past and was accepted as a show of how civilized 'we' were becoming. The streets would be safer for our wives and children from the rowdy cowboy.

Now to the safety issue. Those who say I need a gun to protect my family yet you practice safe gun ownership by locking it up and keep the ammo in a separate location. Well what kind of protection does it afford you if someone breaks into your home and you have to first unlock the cabinet to get your gun then go to another cabinet to get the ammo and load your gun. Think you can do that fast enough to prevent harm to you or your family?

The NRA is first and foremost a political organization who, I personally, believe (based on a strict construtionist view of the 2nd amendment - state militia being armed) misuse the 2nd amendment. They make it sound like Big Brother Government is out to take freedoms from you yet they also do not want safety features added to guns either. So maybe they are schills for the gun manufacturers??

Looking at types of guns and owners I come to this conclusion.
1) If you are a hunter or sport shooter then the types of guns you will own would be suitable for that activity and when not used stored safely. So owning a rifle, sport pistol, shotgun is not an issue with me. I seriously doubt you would be walking around town with it.
2) Gun collectors can be equated to antique collectors so why not have the guns plugged. Are you really going to take that 16th century French Wheel-lock and shoot it? So no problems with ownership for me here either.
3) Hand-guns in generally. If you are not going to keep it loaded and right within reach 24/7 then for what purpose do you own it? For protection, see above for my reasons on this being impractical. Therefore, why not require trigger locks and biometric senses (WDW uses biometrics on admission). This way no one can 'accidently' use your gun. Yet the NRA is against these devices. Why?? Because it will raise the cost and that is 'bad'??
4) Assault Weapons, etc. These types of weapons have no place except in the armed forces. Who is going Deer hunting with an uzi or m-16 or ak-47? Why would you need an automatic weapon to fire x-bullets in 1 minute? If you are a collector and want an up-to-date item in your collection then what is wrong if it is plugged and no fire-pin. It is just for show anyway.

I am a Libertarian, not some 'liberal' or 'conservative' nut. I, however, take the 2nd amendment literally which means arming is for a Militia; but if you want to own a gun then there is nothing wrong with some sensable controls.

This has been a long reply. I hope it is read in its entirety and if anyone quotes from it that they do it in context to my theme. That is certain guns need to be banned from private non-military ownership; that others should be made unfirable for collectors and that safety devices be attached so that accidental (unlawful) use curtailed. Finally, I am totally against the 'concealed' weapons laws as I believe it will lead to settling arguements by firepower, ex. road rage.

Disduck, you are an abundance of logic in this thread. You have me delving into my Libertarian information! Have a good day!