Gun control debate (merged)

[Vol Main]

I'm going to keep mine. Thanks.

I think current owners should have the right to keep them. Any suggestion otherwise is a nonstarter.

 

[luthervol]

Those that grow up around guns view them differently and typically have a greater appreciation of them …..as well as a healthy respect. It’s very rare to see this type of person being or acting irresponsible when handling them.

It depends on how the guns they grew up around were being used.
Now back to the urban v rural data......

 

[Carl Pickens]

Nowhere did I advocate taking your firearm away. I stated the opposite, "But I do not think that possession of the rifles themselves should become a crime. We need to stop people who want to commit mass murder from walking out of a gun store with one of those guns, and the only way to do that is to ban their manufacture and sale. That is what I support doing." I think that current owners should have the right to keep them.

Give a person wanting to kill people a pump action shotgun, 2 1911s and an ammo bag and they’ll be successful…. Especially in a gun free target zone like an elementary school

 

[OrangeTsar]

Thanks for the reply. Your answer makes sense. I'll use "weapons lover" if that is better.

Since the first caveman sharpened the end of a stick, the weapon gave freedom, property, safety, and food. Like any other tool, it can bring life or it can bring destruction. I have never used a weapon against another human (save rhetorical weaponry) so I see no moral justification for depriving me of them and the ability they would give me to defend my life or property should the need arise. It is a core moral tenant that society should never punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. The fact that a madman in Texas committed heinous evil should have no bearing on the legal property of the Orange Tsar

 

[Carl Pickens]

It depends on how the guns they grew up around were being used.
Now back to the urban v rural data......

That’s what I was getting at. You go in houses in rural areas and they’re much more likely to have several guns and know how to use them.

 

[sonofUT62]

I do. They may not be the only group, but they are certainly one of them.

Well if multiple groups of people become pariahs it eventually waters down the concept. I’ve taken 3-4 surveys about my opinion on abortion and I’m apparently about as neutral as you can get. Interrupting religious services and threatening to desecrate a sacrament that many find sacred is ****ing looney tunes. Imagine someone walking into a mosque in Brooklyn on 9/12 and urinating on a prayer rug. Of course that would never happen because it’s open season on all flavors of Judeo- Christianity. Tangling with anyone else makes you a bigot.

 

[OrangeTsar]

Give a person wanting to kill people a pump action shotgun, 2 1911s and an ammo bag and they’ll be successful…. Especially in a gun free target zone like an elementary school

Or as the citizens of London have discovered to their sorrow the 10,000 or so year old inventon known as the knife works quite well too for those inclined to evil

 

[DC_Vol]

I'm curious how many of you gun lovers grew up in a rural environment.
Where any of you raised in an urban environment?

Urban here.

 

[OrangeTsar]

That’s what I was getting at. You go in houses in rural areas and they’re much more likely to have several guns and know how to use them.

The South Side of Chicago has entered the chat

 

[Vol Main]

Would the OP care to explain why the 2nd Amendment was included in the Constitution? Would we also be banning high capacity rifles from what could become a tyrannical government that needed to be deposed?

This might not answer your question directly, but I see people misrepresenting the purpose of Second Amendment. The Founders support for militia was based on the idea that a large, standing army was the greatest threat to a nation's liberty. So they wanted a mixed system, with an army limited in size by the Congress, supported by militia.

 

[sonofUT62]

Nowhere did I advocate taking your firearm away. I stated the opposite, "But I do not think that possession of the rifles themselves should become a crime. We need to stop people who want to commit mass murder from walking out of a gun store with one of those guns, and the only way to do that is to ban their manufacture and sale. That is what I support doing." I think that current owners should have the right to keep them.

So you’re in favor of protecting civil liberties for those who are grandfathered in…………Jesus

 

[Vol8188]

The reluctance of so many is telling.
I would guess that people raised in a rural environment view guns differently.
That's completely understandable.

You didn’t really answer the question. Why does that matter?

 

[OrangeTsar]

Well if multiple groups of people become pariahs it eventually waters down the concept. I’ve taken 3-4 surveys about my opinion on abortion and I’m apparently about as neutral as you can get. Interrupting religious services and threatening to desecrate a sacrament that many find sacred is ****ing looney tunes. Imagine someone walking into a mosque in Brooklyn on 9/12 and urinating on a prayer rug. Of course that would never happen because it’s open season on all flavors of Judeo- Christianity. Tangling with anyone else makes you a bigot.

We at least had some common ground back in the days of Clinton when the left said they wanted abortion to be safe, legal, and RARE to today when the left demands unlimited abortion up until the very moment of birth. But the left somehow claims that it is the right that has grown “extreme”

 

[luthervol]

Since the first caveman sharpened the end of a stick, the weapon gave freedom, property, safety, and food. Like any other tool, it can bring life or it can bring destruction. I have never used a weapon against another human (save rhetorical weaponry) so I see no moral justification for depriving me of them and the ability they would give me to defend my life or property should the need arise. It is a core moral tenant that society should never punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. The fact that a madman in Texas committed heinous evil should have no bearing on the legal property of the Orange Tsar

The innocent are always punished for the crimes of the guilty. Eve taught us that, I think....been a long time.

 

[clarksvol00]

Works for the first Amendment too. The founders were thinking of printing presses, not computers and smart phones. So please turn yours in and go buy a bundle of goose quills and an ink well, ok???

I'm just gonna throw this out there for discussion and probably disappear... extensive jurisprudence exists allowing restrictions on speech, assembly, and exercise of religious practices in certain circumstances. We don't have regular debates about those. Why are firearms different?

 

[C-south]

The reluctance of so many is telling.
I would guess that people raised in a rural environment view guns differently.
That's completely understandable.

There's a document that says it doesn't matter.

 

[OrangeTsar]

This might not answer your question directly, but I see people misrepresenting the purpose of Second Amendment. The Founders support for militia was based on the idea that a large, standing army was the greatest threat to a nation's liberty. So they wanted a mixed system, with an army limited in size by the Congress, supported by militia.

if that is the case, it is nonsensical to deprive the citizenry of arms up until the moment they are needed. In an emergency beyond the abilities of the standing army to face, there is no practical way to quickly distribute arms to the populace and (even more time critically) train people to use them. This interpretation of the second amendment still requires a constantly armed populace to be practical.

 

[DC_Vol]

I'm just gonna throw this out there for discussion and probably disappear... extensive jurisprudence exists allowing restrictions on speech, assembly, and exercise of religious practices in certain circumstances. We don't have regular debates about those. Why are firearms different?

I’m most cases, there are restrictions on shooting people?

Having the right to bear arms doesn’t mean you have the right to do whatever you want with it.

 

[luthervol]

That’s what I was getting at. You go in houses in rural areas and they’re much more likely to have several guns and know how to use them.

That's why I'm asking. I'm curious about the correlation between rural upbringing and "pro everything gun"; at least among the people debating it in the PF.
Me: urban - pro gun control

 

[sonofUT62]

I'm curious how many of you gun lovers grew up in a rural environment.
Where any of you raised in an urban environment?

I’ve lived in both. When I lived in Inman Park (Atlanta) I carried everywhere. Now that I live in Johnson City I rarely carry because it’s a hassle to go into certain places and you can’t have an adult beverage. This image that you have of all the citizens of Mountain City TN armed at Food Lion is comical.

 

[OrangeTsar]

I'm just gonna throw this out there for discussion and probably disappear... extensive jurisprudence exists allowing restrictions on speech, assembly, and exercise of religious practices in certain circumstances. We don't have regular debates about those. Why are firearms different?

Actually we do NOT allow those things to be restricted either unless they present an imminent threat of bodily harm. The mere possession of a firearm does NOT cross that boundary

 

[0nelilreb]

The innocent are always punished for the crimes of the guilty. Eve taught us that, I think....been a long time.

The ones that disobeyed were punished for the choices they made , god taught us that . They had choices , they made them and then paid the price . It’s a simple concept really if you think about it . We just prefer to blame everything else for our actions .

 

[0nelilreb]

I'm just gonna throw this out there for discussion and probably disappear... extensive jurisprudence exists allowing restrictions on speech, assembly, and exercise of religious practices in certain circumstances. We don't have regular debates about those. Why are firearms different?

We have restrictions on firearms , more than any other right , even though the constitution specifically says “Shall not be infringed upon on “ only on this one right .

 

[OrangeTsar]

The innocent are always punished for the crimes of the guilty. Eve taught us that, I think....been a long time.

Uh…..how exactly did Eve tech us that the innocent are punished for the crimes of the guilty? That assumes that in terms of spiritual guilt that there is such a thing as the “innocent”. (Actually, there was ONE truly innocent person, but He was punished too (by his own choice) so thy all the guilty could eventually be judged as truly innocent). Which of course such incredibly good news that it is the greatest miracle of all time and the very thing that gives us hope.

 

[Vol Main]

A few other notes:

Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – are involved in 3% of firearm murders.

Handguns are much easier to conceal and typically fire larger caliber rounds, often with hollow point/expanding, very destructive projectiles. 21 and even 30+ round mags are available.

My 12 gauge is currently loaded with 72 approximately 9mm projectiles that I could disperse in less than 10 seconds.

If "high power" is your issue, what will we do with .50 BMG, .308, .338 LM, .300 WinMag, .30-06, etc. (ALL more powerful than a 5.56). Many of those are used in hunting larger game.

I know you are trying to say something, but other than the 3% statistic, I do not see your point, if there is a point. Are you implying that the victims of mass murder by assault rifles are statistically insignificant so we should continue accepting them? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but what are you saying if not that?

Banning assualt rifles will not stop mass murders. Perps will use other weapons. But the fuzz and anyone handy with a gun will be far more effective defending against less effective weapons.