This is why I'm against gun control.

[Jugglin'5]

If you remove guns from a society there aren't guns to steal from honest people to give to the bad guys. Most of the supply just dries up.

 

Like drugs? Nope - the bad guys will just get smuggled guns, while I sit in my house like a good little girl, helpless, because I did my duty and turned my gun in. Not happenin'.

[KathyJo]

Well, since you put it that way...I don't know that I'm particularly interested in your "interpretation", either.:) If you'd care to explain the applicability of the past standards and expectations Phred noted below to today's so-called gun laws, though, I'm all ears.

 

The difference is, I'm not asking anyone at all to agree to my "interpretation," because I'm not making one. There are any number of writings from Founding Fathers which support the fact that the right to bear arms is an individual right granted to the people, any number of entire books and web sites devoted to nothing but this topic. It's there for anyone with the courage to look with an open mind. What Phred has pointed out here is pre-colonial England, and court cases less than one hundred years old. You'll note that a significant lapse occurs between the two time frames, and the writings of the Founding Fathers and men like St. George Tucker fall during that lapse. If anyone wants to tell me what the Founding Fathers meant, then by all means, please do so. Only tell me using the words that they and their contemporaries actually said.

[Fourmother]

This is *exactly* why it should not be a federal issue. It should be a state and local government issue. Except, like I said, I don't oppose banning certain types of weapons and/or ammunition (neither do most of the gun owners that I know).

 

I can see the logic behind making it a local/state issue as opposed to a federal one. The problem is that state boundaries are open. There's nothing to stop someone from buying guns in Virgina and selling them in Oakland, New York, Chicago, DC or LA. I spent my summers in VA with family when I was a child. All my relatives there had guns, and I even shot tin cans with my cousins. Growing up in Baltimore, my father kept a pistol for protection at his store which was located in a rough area. So I understand the utilitarian nature of firearms. Yet, people are dying still. Fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends - 900 murdered last year in LA county. Thug or not, every one of them was somebody's child.

 

I am just rambling at this point. Frankly, I don't know what the solution is, but I am frightened and sad.

[sdWTMer]

I can see the logic behind making it a local/state issue as opposed to a federal one. The problem is that state boundaries are open. There's nothing to stop someone from buying guns in Virgina and selling them in Oakland, New York, Chicago, DC or LA. I spent my summers in VA with family when I was a child. All my relatives there had guns, and I even shot tin cans with my cousins. Growing up in Baltimore, my father kept a pistol for protection at his store which was located in a rough area. So I understand the utilitarian nature of firearms. Yet, people are dying still. Fathers, sons, mothers, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends - 900 murdered last year in LA county. Thug or not, every one of them was somebody's child.

 

I am just rambling at this point. Frankly, I don't know what the solution is, but I am frightened and sad.

 

Considering that you and I (I live closer) both live near the Mexico border, you very well know that guns will be smuggled into the US from Mexico. It is absolutely naive to think otherwise. For goodness sakes, we have uncontrolled illegal immigration, so the guns will just come up with them. Guns in the hands of bad people will always be! They will slip into our borders, via planes or people coming illegally into the country. Unless you have martial law will you be able to control guns not being in the hands of bad people, I certainly don't want that!

 

The right to bear arms is integral to the American way of life.

[Phred]

Considering that you and I (I live closer) both live near the Mexico border, you very well know that guns will be smuggled into the US from Mexico. It is absolutely naive to think otherwise. For goodness sakes, we have uncontrolled illegal immigration, so the guns will just come up with them. Guns in the hands of bad people will always be! They will slip into our borders, via planes or people coming illegally into the country. Unless you have martial law will you be able to control guns not being in the hands of bad people, I certainly don't want that!

 

The right to bear arms is integral to the American way of life.

All arms? Do I have the right to shoulder-mounted ground-to-air missile launchers? Tactical nuclear weapons? Anti-tank weapons? Can I own a sword and carry it on my side? A spear?

 

I'm just wondering how integral weapons are to the American way of life and which weapons. Would you care to clarify your statement?

[Colleen]

I need clarification on a couple of points here.

 

For goodness sakes, we have uncontrolled illegal immigration, so the guns will just come up with them. Guns in the hands of bad people will always be!

 

I may be reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're assuming that illegal immigrants are necessarily "bad people". Is that what you're implying?

 

The right to bear arms is integral to the American way of life.

 

It is? How so?

[Colleen]

The difference is, I'm not asking anyone at all to agree to my "interpretation," because I'm not making one.

 

Needless to say, we'll have to agree to disagree. I live in a community in which the right to bear arms is assumed by the vast majority, so I do have many friends who share your thoughts. One question I've posed to them ~ and one which inevitably receives a wide array of answers, is this: What constitutes "arms"? Assuming that we have a right to bear them, and given what they consisted of at the time the Founding Fathers were living, should there be limitations in place as to acceptability? If so, what limits? Or would the Founding Fathers, in your opinion, be of the "anything goes" mindset?

[Mrs Mungo]

All arms? Do I have the right to shoulder-mounted ground-to-air missile launchers? Tactical nuclear weapons? Anti-tank weapons? Can I own a sword and carry it on my side? A spear?

 

I'm just wondering how integral weapons are to the American way of life and which weapons. Would you care to clarify your statement?

 

 

I have yet to see an argument here that insists we should be allowed to carry any guns and use any ammunition we wish. Serious straw-man argument you're making there.

 

I know many people who absolutely need weapons to sustain their lifestyle. I'm talking people who eat meat only that they hunt and/or raise. A *large* part of hunting is also animal control. Here in Hawaii there are no natural predators for many animals. Therefore, there are regular hunts encouraged for boar and such in order to control the populations.

 

I'm not arguing in favor of letting citizens own any weapon they wish, quite the contrary. I know people with LOTS of guns and none of them own an uzi or anything.

 

So, what is the argument? What aspects of gun control are you in favor of? Do you think no private citizen should own a weapon and/or be allowed to store a weapon in their home *at all*? In Germany people have keep guns at shooting or hunting clubs. They aren't even allowed to have something like a black powder rifle in their home which a child sure as heck isn't going to accidently shoot themselves with.

 

None of us yet know how much common ground we have because those for gun control haven't said what sort of laws they favor.

[KathyJo]

Needless to say, we'll have to agree to disagree. I live in a community in which the right to bear arms is assumed by the vast majority, so I do have many friends who share your thoughts. One question I've posed to them ~ and one which inevitably receives a wide array of answers, is this: What constitutes "arms"? Assuming that we have a right to bear them, and given what they consisted of at the time the Founding Fathers were living, should there be limitations in place as to acceptability? If so, what limits? Or would the Founding Fathers, in your opinion, be of the "anything goes" mindset?

 

You seem to be saying that we all get to have our own opinion on what the Founding Fathers intended. I'm from the point of view that they already told us what they intended, and the reason that they created the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from overstepping its boundaries and infringing upon the fundamental rights of a free people.

 

Which arms? I'm more radical than most. Since the Founding Fathers pointed out specifically that one purpose of the right to bear arms is protection against a large standing military, then I believe that I have the right to own any weapon that our military might issue to a soldier, but not limited to only those types of weapons. Yes, pretty much "anything goes" as far as guns and knives. As for the nukes mentioned by Phred, I'm not even sure I believe the government has the right to have nuclear weapons.

[Mrs Mungo]

Which arms? I'm more radical than most. Since the Founding Fathers pointed out specifically that one purpose of the right to bear arms is protection against a large standing military, then I believe that I have the right to own any weapon that our military might issue to a soldier, but not limited to only those types of weapons. Yes, pretty much "anything goes" as far as guns and knives. As for the nukes mentioned by Phred, I'm not even sure I believe the government has the right to have nuclear weapons.

 

Wow, I will disagree with that. I don't know how aware you are of the types of weapons issued to soldiers but I see no reason a private citizen needs a grenade launcher or 50 cal.

[Colleen]

I have yet to see an argument here that insists we should be allowed to carry any guns and use any ammunition we wish. Serious straw-man argument you're making there.

 

You must have written this before reading KathyJo's post above...;)

[Tammyla]

No words. Horrible.

[Mrs Mungo]

 

You must have written this before reading KathyJo's post above...;)

 

Ah, see benefit of linear order, I see all the posts in the order they were written. So, it's easy to see I posted before she did. :D

 

Of course, the obvious drawback is I would have to switch to a different mode to see what Tammyla is referring to.

[Jugglin'5]

I may be reading this wrong, but it sounds like you're assuming that illegal immigrants are necessarily "bad people". Is that what you're implying?

No, the point that I believe she is making is that we can't really control what comes through our borders. If people can get through so easily, how much easier is it to get guns through. I made a similar argument earlier with drug smuggling. Phred (at least I think it was Phred) stated earlier that when non-criminals don't have guns then the bad guys won't have a source to steal their guns from, and the gun supply will dry up. Pshaw.

 

 

Count me in as another one who thinks an armed populace is necessary to keep our freedoms from being curtailed by the govt. The colonials were able to do so because they didn't let their benevolent British overlords take all their guns after the French and Indian war, since they didn't "need" them anymore.

[Colleen]

You seem to be saying that we all get to have our own opinion on what the Founding Fathers intended. I'm from the point of view that they already told us what they intended, and the reason that they created the Bill of Rights is to prevent the government from overstepping its boundaries and infringing upon the fundamental rights of a free people.

 

Your stance is a matter of opinion; it's an interpretation. Naturally, since you believe it to be THE right answer, you don't view it as an interpretation. Kinda reminds me of the sticky wicket in discussing theology. A person who believes her interpretation of a given Bible verse is the be-all, end-all doesn't consider it a matter of interpretation ~ she believes it's what the Bible clearly says, right there in black and white.

 

Since the Founding Fathers pointed out specifically that one purpose of the right to bear arms is protection against a large standing military, then I believe that I have the right to own any weapon that our military might issue to a soldier, but not limited to only those types of weapons. Yes, pretty much "anything goes" as far as guns and knives.

 

Interesting. It's my opinion that historical documents need to be read in the context of their times; your perspective is sorely lacking in that regard ~ in my opinion.

 

Thanks for the dialogue, by the way.:)

[KathyJo]

Your stance is a matter of opinion; it's an interpretation. Naturally, since you believe it to be THE right answer, you don't view it as an interpretation. Kinda reminds me of the sticky wicket in discussing theology. A person who believes her interpretation of a given Bible verse is the be-all, end-all doesn't consider it a matter of interpretation ~ she believes it's what the Bible clearly says, right there in black and white.

 

LOL And that might have some truth in it, except that the writings of many of our Founders is so clear on this issue that it can only mean what it says. Unless it's not supposed to be in English? You know, and so do I, that if you could find any quotes from them that say straight out that it's not an individual right, you'd have already thrown it at me. ;)

Interesting. It's my opinion that historical documents need to be read in the context of their times; your perspective is sorely lacking in that regard ~ in my opinion.

And it's mine that in doing so, we weaken the Bill of Rights and pave the way towards tyranny.

Thanks for the dialogue, by the way.:)

You may not remember me from when I used to post, but ya know, I always liked you. But many of your stances on issues hurt my head. :lol:

[Colleen]

LOL And that might have some truth in it, except that the writings of many of our Founders is so clear on this issue that it can only mean what it says. Unless it's not supposed to be in English? You know, and so do I, that if you could find any quotes from them that say straight out that it's not an individual right, you'd have already thrown it at me. ;)

 

It hasn't occurred to me to dig up quotes because, just like in theological debates, that game becomes circuitous ~ each person posting "evidence" to prove her rightness. Of course the Founding Fathers bestowed the individual right to bear arms! Agreed! But they did so within a given context. Nothing you quote will ever convince me that any Founding Father could conceive of the culture in which we live today.

 

Bottom line, you adhere to an original intent interpretation, whereas I view the Bill of Rights as a living document ~ a document whose original intent must be studied and applied thoughtfully to our current reality.

 

You may not remember me from when I used to post, but ya know, I always liked you.

 

No, I'm sorry, I don't remember you. Did you post as KathyJo?

 

But many of your stances on issues hurt my head. :lol:

 

Likewise ~ on this particular issue, anyway.:)

[KathyJo]

Did you post as KathyJo?

 

Yep. But it's been, oh, something like four years since I posted on a regular basis, and I was never a frequent poster to begin with.

 

Nice butting heads with you again. ;)

[Slartibartfast]

I do believe in the Right to Bear Arms but I also believe in gun control.

 

I do believe in closing gun show loopholes so that random person cannot sell other random person a gun. This is how the guns used in the Columbine shootings were acquired. There was no background check.

 

I am opposed to felons and people who may be a danger to others having guns.

 

I do not think people need 50 cals or automatic weapons or grenades. My dh's lunatic cousin used m-80s to blow up an old Christmas tree as a Christmas in July party, that is the sort of person who would buy grenades and I don't want them to have them. (sadly he is a pryotechnician and has access to explosives but other people like dh's cousin without training..I don't want them to have grenades)

 

I like background checks as well as licensing for C&C.

 

I don't really believe in registering firearms though

That's about it. :lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

I do believe in closing gun show loopholes so that random person cannot sell other random person a gun. This is how the guns used in the Columbine shootings were acquired. There was no background check.

 

Well, I'm kind of iffy on this. I agree when it comes to gun shows, dealers, etc. However, I think one collector should be able to sell a single weapon to someone without a bunch of rigamarole.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, I'm kind of iffy on this. I agree when it comes to gun shows, dealers, etc. However, I think one collector should be able to sell a single weapon to someone without a bunch of rigamarole.

 

That can't really be prevented. Dh bought his glock from a cop. :lol:

 

If two collectors know each other and one sells his gun to the other that is cool or whatever. But it shouldn't happen at gun shows IMO.

[KathyJo]

I have yet to see an argument here that insists we should be allowed to carry any guns and use any ammunition we wish. Serious straw-man argument you're making there.

 

LOL Sorry I blew that for you, but it was technically still a straw man just for the inclusion of nukes.

 

Here's my deal: I do not believe that the Constitution is a living document. The Bill of Rights was written to enumerate the rights of a free people. It's an individual right, and one of the reasons for the right is so that the people can protect themselves against an oppressive government with a large standing army. Madison's argument in Federalist No. 46 was that the federal government could never produce a standing army that could outnumber the armed citizenry. However, if the military has M-16s, and the armed citizenry has varmint guns, numbers stop mattering so much.

 

Does this mean I fear a squad of soldiers marching up to my front door at any moment? No, I'm radical, not paranoid. :) But, history has shown too many times that dictators can come to power very quickly, and gun control laws really help them along in their rise to power. And if such a thing were to occur, it would be too late to suddenly gain back those lost rights.

 

Another reason that I am against limitations on this right is because our government has shown themselves to be untrustworthy in applying definitions and stipulations on owning certain types of guns. We have a single shot rifle that is considered an assault weapon, for crying out loud. It would be a simple thing for a certain "type" of weapon to be outlawed, and then have the government start adding other specific weapons to that list regardless of whether or not they are really of the same "type."

 

If you're getting the feeling that I don't have much faith or trust in our government, you would be correct.

 

I'm not against keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, of course, but I am against our government keeping any sort of records about who owns which guns. Again, history has shown that this can be a bad thing for the people. And yes, I'll mention the Nazis, because Godwin was an idiot. The time to state that one's government is acting like a bunch of Nazis is before they show up at the door with your train ticket.

 

I do believe that our society has some serious problems, and those problems are the root cause of the violence, not the guns. But I've probably been radical enough here for one day, so I won't go into those. :D

[Slartibartfast]

Well.

 

The Constitution doesn't actually stipulate that the Right to Bear Arms is for revolution whenever the government gets too big for it's britches.

 

That aspect is in the personal writings of Thomas Jefferson, who was a bit radical (and still is really)

 

If the FF had been a bit more definitive in what they meant, then it might be more protected.

[Mrs Mungo]

However, if the military has M-16s, and the armed citizenry has varmint guns, numbers stop mattering so much.

 

So....are you suggesting private citizens own tanks and anti-aircraft guns and stealth bombers? Because...well...yeah...you're not going to beat the US military with an M-16, period.

[Slartibartfast]

I *do* want a tank.

 

 

 

 

 

:)

[Mrs Mungo]

I *do* want a tank.

 

 

 

 

 

:)

 

http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/

[Slartibartfast]

http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/

 

*wonders how they are on fuel economy*

[Mrs Mungo]

*wonders how they are on fuel economy*

 

You could probably rig it to run on biofuel. You'd just have to visit every fast-food restaurant in town every week.

[Slartibartfast]

http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/BMP-1_and_variants_for_sale_page.htm

 

Available for hire for business promotion,Film and TV, Paintballing or for private parties. Ideal for recreational off road driving the vehicle are direct Army surplus. These Action Vehicles are great fun, and have a reputation for ruggedness and reliability.

 

:blink:

 

 

 

[KathyJo]

The Constitution doesn't actually stipulate that the Right to Bear Arms is for revolution whenever the government gets too big for it's britches.

 

That aspect is in the personal writings of Thomas Jefferson, who was a bit radical (and still is really)

 

No, otherwise we'd already be in the middle of a revolution. And I pointed out the writings of Madison, the author of the amendment himself.

 

 

So....are you suggesting private citizens own tanks and anti-aircraft guns and stealth bombers? Because...well...yeah...you're not going to beat the US military with an M-16, period.

 

I think you missed the part of my previous post where I said specifically "guns and knives." (Though it would be cool to own a tank.)

 

OTOH, if our government suddenly had the military bombing American cities, I think a great many people would suddenly be trying to lay hands on all the weapons you mention.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think you missed the part of my previous post where I said specifically "guns and knives." (Though it would be cool to own a tank.)

 

No, I saw that but you can't claim they are to defend you against the US military...because they wouldn't. That was my point.

 

OTOH, if our government suddenly had the military bombing American cities, I think a great many people would suddenly be trying to lay hands on all the weapons you mention.

 

Which, has no bearing on whether they should be legal for the general population in the current political situation.

[KathyJo]

No, I saw that but you can't claim they are to defend you against the US military...because they wouldn't. That was my point.

 

Which, has no bearing on whether they should be legal for the general population in the current political situation.

 

 

Actually, you are the one who brought up tanks and anti-aircraft guns and stealth bombers. Those would only be necessary to defend against the government in the case of the government using them against us, and my point was that if such an event were to occur, a lot of minds would change quickly and radically.

 

And if the government was not using those types of weapons against US citizens, then an M16 might have some advantages, so your argument that they would be no defense against the military falls apart.

[Mrs Mungo]

Actually, you are the one who brought up tanks and anti-aircraft guns and stealth bombers. Those would only be necessary to defend against the government in the case of the government using them against us, and my point was that if such an event were to occur, a lot of minds would change quickly and radically.

 

And if the government was not using those types of weapons against US citizens, then an M16 might have some advantages, so your argument that they would be no defense against the military falls apart.

 

I don't get it. Are the citizens supposed to be armed against the US military or not? You're argument makes no sense unless you follow through to the logical conclusion. I can *assure* you if citizens were using M-16 on the US military, the government wouldn't hesitate to up the ante.

[Slartibartfast]

IMO if the military were using Tanks/bombers and crap on US citizens then I think some of the soldiers would take their fun toys and start playing for the other side.

[Mrs Mungo]

IMO if the military were using Tanks/bombers and crap on US citizens then I think some of the soldiers would take their fun toys and start playing for the other side.

 

I agree but if the argument is "we should be able to have any type of weapon in case of the revolution and we need to attack the government" it doesn't logically follow that you would only use M-16s. Because those would pretty much be the least of your worries.

[Slartibartfast]

I agree but if the argument is "we should be able to have any type of weapon in case of the revolution and we need to attack the government" it doesn't logically follow that you would only use M-16s. Because those would pretty much be the least of your worries.

 

 

Well...we get better stuff on the 4th than M-16s

 

 

Frankly, if I was planning a Revolution I would use fireworks :lol:

[KathyJo]

I don't get it. Are the citizens supposed to be armed against the US military or not? You're argument makes no sense unless you follow through to the logical conclusion. I can *assure* you if citizens were using M-16 on the US military, the government wouldn't hesitate to up the ante.

 

And if such an event should occur, then I'm sure many minds would change about private citizens having a need for such weapons. The logical conclusion is that if such an event were to occur, then the political situation would be quite different from what it is now. I never argued that they should be legal right now. This is your scenario.

 

IMO if the military were using Tanks/bombers and crap on US citizens then I think some of the soldiers would take their fun toys and start playing for the other side.

 

Thankfully, yes, I'm sure they would.

[Mrs Mungo]

And if such an event should occur, then I'm sure many minds would change about private citizens having a need for such weapons. The logical conclusion is that if such an event were to occur, then the political situation would be quite different from what it is now. I never argued that they should be legal right now. This is your scenario.

 

Ok...let's step back. Let me break down my argument for you a bit more:

 

You are arguing that M-16s and any other "guns" (which has a pretty broad definition) the military uses should be legal for the general population in case you need to fight the government. But that's not going to do the trick so it isn't a logical argument. If you don't need a 50 cal (which is a gun) or a rocket propelled grenade launcher then you don't need an M-16, either.

[KathyJo]

I agree but if the argument is "we should be able to have any type of weapon in case of the revolution and we need to attack the government" it doesn't logically follow that you would only use M-16s. Because those would pretty much be the least of your worries.

 

But I never said "in case of revolution." I don't think the Founding Fathers were suggesting that we overthrow the government that they were forming. An armed citizenry is a deterrent in and of itself for many government excesses that lead to revolution.

[Mrs Mungo]

An armed citizenry is a deterrent in and of itself for many government excesses that lead to revolution.

 

But I don't think it would be in your scenario for the very reasons I stated.

[Slartibartfast]

But I never said "in case of revolution." I don't think the Founding Fathers were suggesting that we overthrow the government that they were forming. An armed citizenry is a deterrent in and of itself for many government excesses that lead to revolution.

 

Oh they did state that a well armed citizenry is a deterrent, but they had muskets and sometimes even cannons at the time.

 

Jefferson *did* suggest we overthrow the government from time to time..but as I stated he was radical. :lol:

[KathyJo]

You are arguing that M-16s and any other "guns" (which has a pretty broad definition) the military uses should be legal for the general population in case you need to fight the government. But that's not going to do the trick so it isn't a logical argument. If you don't need a 50 cal (which is a gun) or a rocket propelled grenade launcher then you don't need an M-16, either.

 

Oh, I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing my point.

 

An armed citizenry is a deterrent against government excesses. In an unarmed society, it only takes a couple of soldiers at the door. In an armed society, the government would have to escalate matters significantly to reach the same goals. That escalation would produce an entirely different political climate from the present one, which we both agree does not justify private citizens owning stealth bombers. In fact, that escalation would be an all out war with two opposing sides, or it would be guerrilla warfare. In either case, it would no longer be a merely academic discussion.

[Mrs Mungo]

Oh, I get what you're saying, but I think you're missing my point.

 

An armed citizenry is a deterrent against government excesses. In an unarmed society, it only takes a couple of soldiers at the door. In an armed society, the government would have to escalate matters significantly to reach the same goals. That escalation would produce an entirely different political climate from the present one, which we both agree does not justify private citizens owning stealth bombers. In fact, that escalation would be an all out war with two opposing sides, or it would be guerrilla warfare. In either case, it would no longer be a merely academic discussion.

 

I think you're overestimating the civilian population and underestimating the US military. To say the least.

[Colleen]

I think you're overestimating the civilian population and underestimating the US military. To say the least.

 

Yeah, seriously. And any-hoo, I'm lost here. We've determined that KathyJo and I disagree on the heart of the issue, but I thought I did at least understand her position. But reading this volley, perhaps not. So to your mind, KathyJo, a well-armed citizenry militia sends a message to a potentially-tyrannical government ~ in which case, as Mrs. Mungo points out, we'd better be pretty d*mn well-armed, eh?

 

Btw, it's funny to engage with you on this and have you repeatedly refer to yourself as "radical". In my daily circle, you're the norm. I'm the radical.:)

[Michelle in MO]

on this issue, since I have found in these types of discussions that there are never really any clear winners and losers. Usually most people come away convinced about their particular stance on an issue.

 

Some of this may become a moot point in the near future. The Supreme Court has generally stayed out of gun control issues; however, last fall they agreed to hear this case (see this NY Times article). Whatever they decide will further determine this issue of gun control. FWIW, many believe that SCOTUS will decide in favor of allowing individuals to own guns for this reason: since the rest of the Bill of Rights was written to grant certain rights to individuals (religion, freedom of assembly, press, etc.), there's no reason to assume that the framers of the Constitution had a different intention for the Second Amendment.

 

Whatever they decide, though, the debate is far from over. Mrs. Mungo may be right in that states may battle over interpretations of SCOTUS's ruling for years to come.

 

We own a shotgun, but have no shells for it now. One of my husband's uncles passed it on to him before he died. It was never even used for hunting; only for shooting clay pigeons. I would like to think we're not doing anything illegal. I have no need for a tank or a Uzi, though. ;)

[Bev in B'ville]

When I was in high school, we had a rifle team that competed against other schools' rifle teams. The team was composed of all boys and the boys all brought their rifles onto the bus with them to go to school and kept the rifles in their lockers until after school when they practiced or had a meet. We did not once have an incident involving guns in the school, nor were there incidents at the competitions. The point is, the children were trained to respect the power of the weapon they were handling and had both the fear of God and their parents in them if they misused the weapon. So, guns in the hands of children is not a bad thing. It's how they're taught to use them (or not taught at all) that is bad.

 

Both of my dc know how to use weapons. It's required in my house. We live in an area abundant in wild life: foxes, boors, wild dog packs, etc. It is a necessary skill to have in this area.

 

Back in my early 20's, I lived in a downtown area of a large city and went to school at night. My father had given me my first pistol and insisted that I have it on my person whenever I walked to and from my car. One night I got out of my car in our dark parking lot. I had my gun on top of my books which I was carrying in my arms. A man approached me with a knife and a stocking cap over his face. I honestly didn't hear a word he said, I was too focused on the knife. Then I remembered that I had a gun. I grabbed it off the top of my books and pointed it at him. He begged me not to shoot him and then took off running. Okay, I wasn't trained to use or comfortable with the gun. I had it because it made my father feel better. If I had had to shoot the guy, I probably would have hit every car in the parking lot and missed the man right in front of me. The good news (at least for me) was that I never found out what the guy had in mind. After that, I learned how to handle my gun.

 

Both in a large, urban area and in our current rural area I have found the need to keep and use guns. If guns were outlawed how would we defend ourselves against a 1000 lb. boor? The big fox that's currently haunting our property and has eaten one of my swans (and I'll gladly admit I or my dc will shoot him first chance we get) - what if he comes after one of my dc? The child molester who lives less than 2 miles away, should he venture onto my property? I'm that mommy tiger whose claws will come out if my family is threatened. My claws just make a really loud noise.

 

I don't keep a gun in my car now and no one really knows exactly how they will respond in any emergency until after it's over. However, I'd like to think I wouldn't have stood by and watched while a child was being killed. The man didn't have a weapon and there were enough people watching to overwhelm him and make a difference, but they didn't. Why? THAT's the bigger question here.

 

As always, just my $.02.

[Phred]

Lively discussion...

 

For the record... it wasn't a strawman. Given the materials and the proper machines I'll bet many Americans can assemble a Hiroshima-type nuclear weapon. My question was deadly serious. If we, as Americans, are allowed to own any weapon that the military owns so that we may come running with them when called up... should we be able to own a nuclear weapon?

 

Now, to continue... I believe that one of my arguments was refuted with the logical and in-depth argument of "pshaw". You'll excuse me if I fail to be convinced.

 

So... if guns aren't the problem. Then I would ask... how do you solve the problem of kids shooting up our streets? Gangs with automatic weapons shooting each other up? Kids dying from stray bullets? Columbine, NIU, VT... I'm a little sick of the mantra, "Guns good, people bad." It's not that simple.

 

You'd shoot a rabid dog without worrying about all the other dogs. It's called being responsible. It's time to "shoot" some of the weapons designed to just kill people on the street without worrying about the other weapons. It's called being responsible. (And yes, I know you need a gun to shoot.)

[Mrs Mungo]

Phred-You failed to answer my question put to you. What measures do you think should be put in place? I don't have a problem outlawing large capacity clips, automatic weapons, hollow point ammunition, etc. I don't have a problem forcing gun show vendors to follow federal and local laws as gun dealers (in fact doing so would probably move the action back to gun stores where it's a bit less shady and more transparent). Are we on the same page or no? eta: Or would you rahter we do like Germany (current Germany, not the Nazis) and disallow all guns in private homes? Would my husband have to take his bolt-action WWI-era war trophy (which probably doesn't even fire) off the wall? What changes would you like to see?

[Phred]

Phred-You failed to answer my question put to you. What measures do you think should be put in place? I don't have a problem outlawing large capacity clips, automatic weapons, hollow point ammunition, etc. I don't have a problem forcing gun show vendors to follow federal and local laws as gun dealers (in fact doing so would probably move the action back to gun stores where it's a bit less shady and more transparent). Are we on the same page or no? eta: Or would you rahter we do like Germany (current Germany, not the Nazis) and disallow all guns in private homes? Would my husband have to take his bolt-action WWI-era war trophy (which probably doesn't even fire) off the wall? What changes would you like to see?

I'd like to see us treat the second amendment like we treat all the other amendments... with reason in regard to the time and place in which we live. For example... NO, you can't own a weapon of mass destruction. A single individual is not allowed to have this much power in his/her hands. It's reserved for the state where it would be used as an act of many, not one. So atomic weapons are out, as are biologic and chemical weapons (of the mass delivery sort). These are not the kind of weapons you'd be expected to bear out to the battlefield.

 

I'd like to see it clearly stated that weapons of a certain caliber are not for individual ownership. Perhaps above a 30/06... I dunno. Does anyone have any reason to own a .50 caliber machine gun? Those pesky velociraptors just won't leave you alone?

 

I'd like manufacturers to be forced to stop making cheap weapons. Raven comes to mind. There's only one use for these... robbing people.

 

I'd like to prevent individuals from becoming gun dealers out of their cars. Own a location and you can sell guns. Example why not... Chicago has a ban on all weapons within its city limits. Fat lotta good that does. Guys can stock up on cheap handguns at gunshows and from private dealers, fill their trunks and drive into the city. They sell them for a quick profit and drive back out again. That has to be stopped. I haven't researched it enough to know how... but there's got to be a noticeable difference between a $120 .38 and a $20 .38.

 

I look forward to the day when the intelligent weapons come online and only the owner can shoot them. Then who cares if it gets ripped off... can you imagine the crackhead who tries to shoot a weapon that tells him, "you're not my owner, put me down" and calls the cops?

 

Lastly, I think there are some places and situations that guns don't mix with. Just like many municipalities ban alcohol and strippers. I'd say no guns in bars. No guns in the passenger compartments of cars. Obviously no guns on planes. And I'm sure there will be other places that various states and cities feel just don't mix with guns. And they should be free to legislate accordingly.

[Mrs Mungo]

Well, Phred, even though we're seeing ourselves on opposite sides of this, we agree. I wouldn't be against any of those changes.

 

The sort of gun control I disagree with is the sort you see in Germany, the UK and such.