How do you feel about guns?

[Bengalzona]

Originally Posted by ICKYSHUFFLE

Fantasizing about something and knowing something can happen are two different things.
You saying someone buys a gun because they fantasized about killing someone is like saying people who wear seat belts fantasize about getting into car wrecks.

"Knowing something can happen"? Paranoid much?

They are out there, Ickyshuffle! They are comin' to get ya! Better get a gun! How else are you gonna defend yourself? With a gun, you can get them before they get you! You'll be a bonafide hero if you kill them before they kill you! You gotta do it, man! That's the way the script is supposed to go.

[Sher Khan]

Saying there is no need for something is an opinion. Certainly everyone is welcome to an opinion, and there is no shortage of those about any subject. But when discussing a law that will infringe on someone's rights, for the supposed purpose of providing for public safety, then opinions are not helpful unless rooted in logic and unless they address the actual problem at hand. Saying that no one should be allowed have a semi-automatic is no more valid than the other person saying everyone should be required to have a semi-automatic.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Saying there is no need for something is an opinion. Certainly everyone is welcome to an opinion, and there is no shortage of those about any subject. But when discussing a law that will infringe on someone's rights, for the supposed purpose of providing for public safety, then opinions are not helpful unless rooted in logic and unless they address the actual problem at hand. Saying that no one should be allowed have a semi-automatic is no more valid than the other person saying everyone should be required to have a semi-automatic.

Except, the law I would be in favor of would not infringe on anyone's rights and it is rooted in logic.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Except, the law I would be in favor of would not infringe on anyone's rights and it is rooted in logic.

If a person only owned the guns you want banned, then you are violating their 2nd amendment freedom. (I think even if they own those you don't want banned you are still violating their freedom, but for the sake of argument let's roll with the first.)

[RumbleCat]

Here's a little break in the action. You guys are getting a little chippy. Enjoy this for a moment, and then carry on. This is my contribution to this thread, no way I get serious in this one. Take a breath boys!

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Except, the law I would be in favor of would not infringe on anyone's rights and it is rooted in logic.

If the law bans what is currently legal to have, then it will infringe on someone's rights. That's how it works when you ban something. Logic, is not an opinion or hopeful wish that something should not exist when in reality of fact, it does. Thus far, all I've seen offered in this thread is mostly opinions.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

If a person only owned the guns you want banned, then you are violating their 2nd amendment freedom. (I think even if they own those you don't want banned you are still violating their freedom, but for the sake of argument let's roll with the first.)

How so? They can still own firearms. And if that is your interpretation of the 2nd, then it's not an infringement.

Also, as there is no feasible way to collect those already in circulation, the ban would be on the sale of those firearms. So the ones already out there would remain and be grandfathered in.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

If the law bans what is currently legal to have, then it will infringe on someone's rights. That's how it works when you ban something. Logic, is not an opinion or hopeful wish that something should not exist when in reality of fact, it does. Thus far, all I've seen offered in this thread is mostly opinions.

The logic is that tools designed to kill human beings in an offensive manner, an illegal action for a civilian, have no reason to be in the hands of a civilian.

And no, banning does not automatically infringe on someone's rights. Just like the assault weapons ban before those already in the populous would be grandfathered in because there is no reasonable way to do otherwise.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

How so? They can still own firearms. And if that is your interpretation of the 2nd, then it's not an infringement.

Also, as there is no feasible way to collect those already in circulation, the ban would be on the sale of those firearms. So the ones already out there would remain and be grandfathered in.

Well, that's 2 different things. I disagree with both. If you took them away from someone, it is clear you are infringing. The 2nd amendment doesn't state that you can only own certain types of guns. The moment they were taken, you have infringed upon their right to own THAT gun.

Banning them going forward, does the same thing.

If the 2nd amendment said "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, except for XYZ guns" then I would say you have a case to be made. But it doesn't.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Except, the law I would be in favor of would not infringe on anyone's rights and it is rooted in logic.

Its sad sad sad day when the citizens of a free country cry out for their rights to be taken away...

I hope it doesnt go the way you want..

But this is how freedom dies.. To a roar of cheers.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

The logic is that tools designed to kill human beings in an offensive manner, an illegal action for a civilian, have no reason to be in the hands of a civilian.

And no, banning does not automatically infringe on someone's rights. Just like the assault weapons ban before those already in the populous would be grandfathered in because there is no reasonable way to do otherwise.

That's not logic, it's your interpretation. And saying "have no reason to be in the hands of civilians", is an opinion, your opinion and not the opinion of millions of Americans. The so called assault gun you are equating to a combat weapon, is not a combat weapon because it's ability to fire automatically is what makes it a combat weapon, and that is not allowed under existing law unless you have a state controlled license. They are simply single fire, semi-auto's, not combat weapons. That's why the Army uses automatics.

So if you can't see the difference between an opinion and logic, then discussing it is pretty much a mute point. And yes, banning something infringes on someone's rights. Period. That's why they call it a "ban."

However, your last statement does cut to the fact that such a law had little or no effect before and would have little or no effect tomorrow, and is designed more for publicity of the politicians involved than to actually resolve an issue. Such a ban does not include the millions if not tens of millions of assault weapons already in the country that are not going away. So it does nothing towards reducing the numbers of them. Secondly, since the parts for what someone will determine is a large capacity clip have to be available because they are legally owned before, and after the ban is enacted, there will be no ban on the parts available to simply build your own, and that's legal. So again, the ban has little or no effect on that aspect.

The fact not opinion is, that less than 2% of gun violence is committed by assault weapons, and less than half of the number of Americans killed on the highways each year are killed by guns, less than 1/3 of the number of Americans who die because of the lack of health care; less than 1/3 of the number of Americans who die due to alchohol related deaths, and secondary disease complications from alcohol die due to gun related deaths.

So in the big picture, a ban does very little at all for restricting the number of assault guns, or high capacity magazines, or reduce the number of people killed with them, or reduce the number of Americans killed by the most likely means by which they die every year. It simply sounds good. It's a feel good thing meant to hoodwink people into believing something has been done when little or nothing has been done except to limit the rights of those who are legitiment owners, represent no threat to anyone, and under current law have the right to own them. And does next to nothing to reduce the number of people killed by other more threatening dangers to the American public. What it does do is make those with opinions feel good.

You want to ban something that makes a difference, then ban alcohol. Who needs that?

Here's the logic. As you have said; it is designed for one express purpose. For inebriation, there is no other purpose for alcohol. And inebrated drivers kill over half of the Americans killed every year on the highway. There is no need for anyone to have alcohol. In addition to highway deaths, it is responsible for nearly 30 thousand deaths a year due to accidents, disease and overdose. There is no reason for anyone in this country to have alcohol.

Oh, wait. We tried that. And it didn't work. Neither does an assault gun ban. There is no simple or magic answer to the issue. What is an answer is expensive, takes time, and means the Nation has to completely overhaul it's mental health system not tinker around with feel good measures that do nothing to address the issue.

The difference is that I would actually like to see something done to address the issue, while most seeminglyi just want something done that is simple, magic, doesn't work, doesn't cost anything since no one wants to pay taxes, but makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Well, that's 2 different things. I disagree with both. If you took them away from someone, it is clear you are infringing. The 2nd amendment doesn't state that you can only own certain types of guns. The moment they were taken, you have infringed upon their right to own THAT gun.

Banning them going forward, does the same thing.

If the 2nd amendment said "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, except for XYZ guns" then I would say you have a case to be made. But it doesn't.

Except the firearms sold today weren't even conceived of at the time of the Constitution. Those who founded this country had no way of knowing the type of killing power we would have in modern firearms. Back then a military firearm and a hunting firearm were basically the same thing. It is not so today. The Constitution was intended to be kept current, and this is one way it could be.

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

Its sad sad sad day when the citizens of a free country cry out for their rights to be taken away...

I hope it doesnt go the way you want..

But this is how freedom dies.. To a roar of cheers.

Except for how I'd like to see it goes does not infringe on the rights of anyone. The restrictions I think should be made would not affect me in any way, or anyone else in a negative manner for that matter.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

That's not logic, it's your interpretation. And saying "have no reason to be in the hands of civilians", is an opinion, your opinion and not the opinion of millions of Americans.

So if you can't see the difference between an opinion and logic, then discussing it is pretty much a mute point. And yes, banning something infringes on someone's rights. Period. That's why they call it a "ban."

However, your last statement does cut to the fact that such a law had little or no effect, and is designed more for publicity of the politicians involved than to actually resolve an issue. Such a ban does not include the millions if not tens of millions of assault weapons already in the country that are not going away. So it does nothing towards reducing the numbers. Secondly, since the parts for what someone will determine is a large capacity clip have to be available because they are legally owned before, and after the ban is enacted, there will be no ban on the parts available to simply build your own, and that's legal. So again, the ban has little or no effect on that aspect.

The fact not opinion is, that less than 2% of gun violence is committed by assault weapons, and less than half of the number of Americans killed on the highways each year are killed by guns, less than 1/3 of the number of Americans who die because of the lack of health care; less than 1/3 of the number of Americans who die due to alchohol related deaths, and secondary disease complications from alcohol die due to gun related deaths.

So in the big picture, a ban does very little at all for restricting the number of assault guns, or high capacity magazines, or reduce the number of people killed with them, or reduce the number of Americans killed by the most likely means by which they die every year. It simply sounds good. It's a feel good thing meant to hoodwink people into believing something has been done when little or nothing has been done except to limit the rights of those who are legitiment owners, represent no threat to anyone, and under current law have the right to own them.

You want to ban something that makes a difference, then ban alcohol. Who needs that?

Here's the logic. As you have said; it is designed for one express purpose. For inebriation, there is no other purpose. And inebrated drivers kill over half of the Americans killed every year on the highway. There is no need for anyone to have alcohol. In addition to highway deaths, it is responsible for nearly 30 thousand deaths a year due to accidents, disease and overdose. There is no reason for anyone in this country to have alcohol.

Oh, wait. We tried that. And it didn't work. Neither does an assault gun ban.

I've already addressed just about every point you made in this post throughout this thread and others, so I'm not going to bother reiterating them here.

Also, no, it's not my opinion that there is no reason for those weapons to be in the hands of civilians, there is just no reason.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

I've already addressed just about every point you made in this post throughout this thread and others, so I'm not going to bother reiterating them here.

Also, no, it's not my opinion that there is no reason for those weapons to be in the hands of civilians, there is just no reason.

And thats your opinion.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Except the firearms sold today weren't even conceived of at the time of the Constitution. Those who founded this country had no way of knowing the type of killing power we would have in modern firearms. Back then a military firearm and a hunting firearm were basically the same thing. It is not so today. The Constitution was intended to be kept current, and this is one way it could be.

Killing power? So, the guns of the day were killing machines, just not AS MUCH of a killing machine as the options available today.

Interesting.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

And thats your opinion.

There has yet to be anyone to give me a reason.

The closest anyone has ever come is the protect us in case the government goes tyrannical. Of course, this is flawed for several reasons:

1. Soldiers are not robots. Most military personnel would not fire on civilians, especially of their own country.

2. Nothing could level the playing field against artillery, air strikes, and armor

3. Military personnel are trained in urban warfare with the weapons we are discussing. If anyone thinks fighting them on that playing field would result in success, they are fooling themselves.

4. We, the civilian populous, far outnumber the military. Our best tactic would be shooting from a distance with accuracy. A tactic better designed for hunting rifles.

So even that reason is ridiculous. They are not for hunting, they are not good self-defense weapons, and they would give a false sense of security if our government actually did try anything so stupid.

[WhoDeyJon]

Gun control doesn't work...........


http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

I've already addressed just about every point you made in this post throughout this thread and others, so I'm not going to bother reiterating them here.

Also, no, it's not my opinion that there is no reason for those weapons to be in the hands of civilians, there is just no reason.

Yes you did, with opinion and not fact. Thank youv very much for your opinion.

I think most of us would like to see something done that would actually work to resolve the issue, not sooth feelings and fit the limited viewpoints of those with just an opinion.

So then based on that, just what is it you would propose that would actually work to resolve the issue and increase public safety? Otherwise, your just someone who has some reaons not to like semi-automatic guns like other people who don't like dogs, or cats, or Fords.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Gun control doesn't work...........


http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_stud...terproductive/

That study doesn't address the type of gun control we are discussing here. The type of gun control I am talking about would not affect gun ownership, just the type of firearms available.

[Wingnut]

Just because you have a constitutional right doesn't mean that right is unlimited.

Does the First Amendment specifically say you can't yell "Fire!" in a theater? Does it say you can't yell "Bomb!" on an airplane? Does it say you can't engage in hate speech? No, it doesn't say any of that and yet it is illegal to do such things. Is your First Amendment right being infringed upon because you can't yell "Bomb!" on an airplane? No, it isn't.

Is a felon's Second Amendment right being infringed upon because he is no longer permitted to own a firearm? Is my Second Amendment right being infringed upon because I can't go out a buy a M240B because the current gun control laws prevent me from doing so because I don't have the proper license and haven't been through the vetting process to obtain the necessary license? No, my Second Amendment right to bear arms isn't being infringed upon because I can't buy a M240B.

I just don't understand the fanatical opposition to any sort of gun control law. As a law abiding citizen and gun owner, gun control laws will have zero affect on my ability to own guns legally. Stricter gun control laws regarding military assault rifles marketed for civilian purposes or other guns with high capacity firing ability will have zero affect on my ability for home defense or to hunt.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

That study doesn't address the type of gun control we are discussing here. The type of gun control I am talking about would not affect gun ownership, just the type of firearms available.

You're going to want to rethink that. There is plenty of information out there that discusses the false idea of grandfathering.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

That study doesn't address the type of gun control we are discussing here. The type of gun control I am talking about would not affect gun ownership, just the type of firearms available.

That does nothing to reduce the current numbers, make their use less likely, reduce gun deaths overall, or enhance public safety overall. So what does it accomplish other than to make you feel good?

If you just don't like guns, then that's a valid opinion. Just say so and let it go at that. Duly noted. However, the entire issue is about resolving the incident or incidents we've all just witnessed.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Just because you have a constitutional right doesn't mean that right is unlimited.

Does the First Amendment specifically say you can't yell "Fire!" in a theater? Does it say you can't yell "Bomb!" on an airplane? Does it say you can't engage in hate speech? No, it doesn't say any of that and yet it is illegal to do such things. Is your First Amendment right being infringed upon because you can't yell "Bomb!" on an airplane? No, it isn't.

.

Those fall into the Inciting Panic laws...

Which now can be consider an act of Terror.....

the recent law passed by obama were certain political people can not be protested or you will be thrown in jail is an infringement on your 1st amendment rights.

And you can engage in any amount of hate speach you want. You might be fired for it.. But you wont go to jail.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Yes you did, with opinion and not fact. Thank youv very much for your opinion.

I think most of us would like to see something done that would actually work to resolve the issue, not sooth feelings and fit the limited viewpoints of those with just an opinion.

So then based on that, just what is it you would propose that would actually work to resolve the issue and increase public safety?

This isn't me being reactionary, this is just my stance on gun control. I'm not talking about a specific event, I'm not talking about the issue of mental health and all of that. The thread is how do you feel about guns, and I am discussing that.

Now, if you would like to have a thread about how to promote public safety, how we may better profile for the incidents like what happened at Sandy Hook, or how our mental health system is a crap shoot, feel free.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

Those fall into the Inciting Panic laws...

Which now can be consider an act of Terror.....

Beat me to it...