Guns

[tom e]

Is the only justification for a gun to protect yourself or to hunt?

Nope, I think that pretty well covers defense too! As for the fun, I got to fire a round out of an Abrams once at a gunnery. You think a .50 is fun?!? LOL! But does that mean I should be able to buy one?
Just saying it's fun to shoot isn't enough IMO.

 

[Rich Z]

Nope, I think that pretty well covers defense too! As for the fun, I got to fire a round out of an Abrams once at a gunnery. You think a .50 is fun?!? LOL! But does that mean I should be able to buy one?
Just saying it's fun to shoot isn't enough IMO.

And why not? Just what does the term "freedom" mean to you? Just because something might be dangerous, does that mean you are willing to give up your rights based on the potential actions of someone else? Many of our freedoms are being whittled away every year exactly under such arguments.

As for the limit of .50 caliber for being legal, .51+ caliber being a destructive device, it was just a number picked arbitrarily out of some government officials nether orifice. Just as the limit for a legal rifle's barrel length being 16 inches. 16 inches is legal. 15 15/16ths of an inch puts you in federal prison. Yeah, that shorter barreled rifle is SO MUCH more dangerous than that longer one. So I guess a 10 inch barreled rifle is proportionally even more dangerous?

Why are silencers regulated as controlled devices? They make a gun *quieter* when fired. What is the harm to society in that capacity?

Quite frankly I resent being presumed guilty of probably using something in an illegal manner, and therefore preemptively restricted because of that presumption.

 

[tom e]

And why not? Just what does the term "freedom" mean to you? Just because something might be dangerous, does that mean you are willing to give up your rights based on the potential actions of someone else? Many of our freedoms are being whittled away every year exactly under such arguments.

As for the limit of .50 caliber for being legal, .51+ caliber being a destructive device, it was just a number picked arbitrarily out of some government officials nether orifice. Just as the limit for a legal rifle's barrel length being 16 inches. 16 inches is legal. 15 15/16ths of an inch puts you in federal prison. Yeah, that shorter barreled rifle is SO MUCH more dangerous than that longer one. So I guess a 10 inch barreled rifle is proportionally even more dangerous?

Why are silencers regulated as controlled devices? They make a gun *quieter* when fired. What is the harm to society in that capacity?

Quite frankly I resent being presumed guilty of probably using something in an illegal manner, and therefore preemptively restricted because of that presumption.

I know it's arbitrary, it kind of has to be doesn't it? Otherwise we're back up to nukes.
I think it would be silly if you're actually offended by my opinion of where that line should be. In many cases my line is less restrictive than what you live with now.
I don't have a problem with barrel lengths as I've stated, nor with silencers. I'm sorry I'm not being so easy to pigeon-hole. :duck:

I think my main point is that I think you were right when you said that nukes are arms (other thread). They have a devastating potential beyond their psychological deterrent. A very good argument against gun control is that when rifles are legal, a criminal doesn't know which home he can safely burgle. That's also a psychological effect, but rifles are still arms too.
When it comes right down to it, I agree that guns are an important part of our culture and heritage, but I think 2A is either unclear, didn't foresee some of the weapons of today, or I just disagree with our founding fathers outright that we should be able to arm up to the same level as the military.

 

[wade]

Quite frankly I resent being presumed guilty of probably using something in an illegal manner, and therefore preemptively restricted because of that presumption.

I am so not going to get into this conversation. If I come back again someone remind me I said that.

Rich has made a really good point. I am being punished for a crime that I may commit but have not yet. That is really what it is all about. Or I’m being punished because of a crime someone else committed. Equally stupid.

The gun lobby’s argument and the anti gun folks tactics have always been “The camels nose in the Tent”. I think giving an inch would be foolish and shortsighted. History is a good defense.

 

[tom e]

I am so not going to get into this conversation. If I come back again someone remind me I said that.

Rich has made a really good point. I am being punished for a crime that I may commit but have not yet. That is really what it is all about. Or I’m being punished because of a crime someone else committed. Equally stupid.

The gun lobby’s argument and the anti gun folks tactics have always been “The camels nose in the Tent”. I think giving an inch would be foolish and shortsighted. History is a good defense.

So nukes it is? Unregistered? No background check? Anything you add to that is giving an inch, and it's sure to hasten a tragedy much larger than 911. If it's not nukes but weaponized anthrax, that's kind of an arbitrary line. Even if we could get the government to agree that THEY will no longer have nukes, and so we can't now, then it's fully armed destroyers and carriers, any line is arbitrary with the proposed understanding of what 2A means. And disarming our government is not really in our interest either..

Also I think if you are currently serving multiple life sentences for no other reason, then THAT would more accurately resemble punishment for a crime you might (yet haven't) committed with a gun.

 

[KJUN]

Gun rights have nothing to do with hunting. That's just a nice (to me) side effect.

This thread has taken 2 different directions: (1) why do you own them and (2)why SHOULD you be able to own them. 1 - this is the because I like them, they are fun to shoot, I can, etc. 2 - The justification and meaning of the 2A. Those are different conversations, and I'm not sure all readers see the differences - especially since not all are used to the American culture.

I believe I SHOULD own them because of #2 above. However, I do own them because, well, I LIKE them.....lol.

 

[KJUN]

Rich has made a really good point. I am being punished for a crime that I may commit but have not yet. That is really what it is all about. Or I’m being punished because of a crime someone else committed. Equally stupid.

The gun lobby’s argument and the anti gun folks tactics have always been “The camels nose in the Tent”. I think giving an inch would be foolish and shortsighted. History is a good defense.

It's the slippery slope syndrome, of course. Personally, I have trouble accepting the validity of pretty much ANY victimless crime.
KJ

 

[Rich Z]

So nukes it is? Unregistered? No background check? Anything you add to that is giving an inch, and it's sure to hasten a tragedy much larger than 911. If it's not nukes but weaponized anthrax, that's kind of an arbitrary line. Even if we could get the government to agree that THEY will no longer have nukes, and so we can't now, then it's fully armed destroyers and carriers, any line is arbitrary with the proposed understanding of what 2A means. And disarming our government is not really in our interest either..

Also I think if you are currently serving multiple life sentences for no other reason, then THAT would more accurately resemble punishment for a crime you might (yet haven't) committed with a gun.

It's all a matter of degree. If a freedom is denied you, whether it is your mobility outside of a jail cell, or a denial of something you want to have, but cannot, then you ARE still being punished for something.

And again, as for the argument about nukes, since there were cannon during the time of the creation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there was obviously black powder as well. I would expect someone touching off a sufficiently large cache of black powder in the center of a town could cause quite a stir. Was this considered as an "arm", in relation to "keep and bear arms"? If so, then the Second Amendment certainly covers it. If not, then the same extrapolated rule of thumb would apply to other mass scale weapons available today.

Again, the entire crux of the matter is WHY was the Second Amendment specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and considered important enough to be listed second out of the 10 rights so listed? From what I recall in my readings about these documents, the states insisted upon the Bill of Rights because they felt the US Constitution did not explicitly identify certain rights that they wanted to be specifically itemized and recognized as being restrictions upon this new government they were creating. Obviously, our founding fathers felt that this "keep and bear arms" RIGHT was of significant importance that it be specifically identified. So why was it so important to a people who had recently declared and spilled blood to gain their independence? Perhaps they were afraid of jumping from the frying pan into the fire? Do you think that if this were all about hunting or even self defense, they might have specifically mentioned that in the 2nd Amendment? But no, it was mentioned in relation to a militia. And, pray tell, just what do you suppose a militia would be FOR back then? Bearing in mind that the framers of the Constitution duly feared a standing army under the control of the new government they were creating. In a nutshell, what was the keeping and bearing of arms actually FOR?

BTW, there is a very good writeup about the origination and intent of the Second Amendment here -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I have to confess that I haven't read it all myself, as it is quite lengthy...

 

[KJUN]

From what I recall in my readings about these documents, the states insisted upon the Bill of Rights because they felt the US Constitution did not explicitly identify certain rights that they wanted to be specifically itemized and recognized as being restrictions upon this new government they were creating.

One explaination for those that don't know American history well: The BOR is written as a reminder to the federal government that these are rights each American had just by being born. No law could remove those rights - we have them aside from the government - not because of it. They can repeal the 2A, but they can't take away that right from me. The repeal would not be valid.

How important was the 2A to our founding fathers? Well, not only is it one of the first ones listed, but NO other right was demanded by more states when they were drafting the BOR. In other words, each state arrived with a list of rights they wanted to see in the BOR. There were differences, but there were a lot of overlaps. Most of the states insisted on the right to bear arms, and no other right were suggested in advance than the right to bear arms. (There was a tie, but none had more support than 2A.)

Think there was a mistake in the language? If so, it was by not being specific enough in defining "infringement" to mean ANYTHING that hinders ones ability to bear arms - such as excessive taxes, outlawing ammunition, etc. The CSA used the US treaty, I mean constitution, as a basis for their own articles. The 2A was used word-for-word. If 2A did mean what it says to practically half of the union, then they had an opportunity to fix it. They didn't. In essence, they said, "The idea that the people have the right to be armed like the military is a valid one. Leave that amendment as written."

Sure, I completely skipped over the nukes issue......lol.
KJ

 

[ciara]

Just a few things to think about, as far as the discussion about where the line should be drawn as to what is legal and what is not. They had to draw a line somewhere, and as a general rule, once you draw a line, if you start making exceptions right and left, the line means nothing. Which is why everything on that side of the line is fine, but once you go an inch under it, it's illegal. As far as why the line was drawn there...well, I don't pretend to know what goes through the government's mind.

Generally laws are made with the idea to protect the general public. Yes, laws do restrict freedoms, but ideally those freedoms restricted are only to protect the greater populace. We all know we don't live in an ideal world. Still, I don't think most people are capable of safely using a nuke, just like I don't think most people are capable of safely driving 130 mph. (Have you SEEN how badly people drive? lol) It's a balance between the rights of the individual to have/do things that can potentially be harmful and the rights of the populace to be protected from harm, accidental or otherwise. I know many, many responsible gun owners who could safely be trusted with everything from pistols to grenades to claymore mines. However, I also know a ton of people who shouldn't even be trusted with board with a nail in it.

Laws will always restrict freedoms, but I think we're better off having some. I don't really agree with the general idea of 'slippery slope' because the general idea of that argument is that once you restrict something a bit, it's only a matter of time until it's completely restricted or even eliminated. The problem is, if you boil that down you're left with not restricting anything, which leads to no laws. We do need laws. The question is, do we have too many of them on the books? Are some of the laws on the books bad, and if so, what do we do about it? Just some food for thought.

 

[kathylove]

The "slippery slope" argument is very valid and TOTALLY logical.

Many restrictions on freedoms are being pushed by extremist groups, such as anti gun groups that would like a total ban on all guns, or humaniac groups that would like a total ban on ALL use of all animals for any purpose, pets included. And probably lots more extreme groups for other causes, I am sure. But if they have any brains, they know that MOST legislators and MOST of the general public will not support their extremist view, at least, not yet. So they propose half measures that get them closer to their goal, but SEEM fairly reasonable to a lot of lawmakers and to many members of the general public. Once society gets used to their half measure, it will be easier to push a little harder, which won't seem so unreasonable at that time. Their goal will be a little closer, and the next generation will have never known the original freedom, so it will be easier to tighten the screws. Kind of like putting the lobster into cold water and slowly turning up the heat so it won't notice until it is too late.

If I was in charge of a group that wanted some radical goal that is not palatable to most at the present time, that is EXACTLY how I would proceed - makes perfect sense to me.

 

[BobbyHill]

Kathy, that's exactly how guns have been taken away in other countries. Well stated.

 

[Rich Z]

Well the "slippery slope" is a real phenomenon where the government is concerned.

Take income taxes..... Aside from the controversy surrounding the 16th Amendment and the constitutional legality of income taxes in general, my grandfather told me that when the government first started collecting federal income taxes, the tax form was the size of a 3x4 inch index card. NOW look at it.

As for laws in general, yes, they are a necessity because people are how they are. The problem lies when laws begin to be used as expressions of power and control rather than to being a benefit to the people the government is supposed to serve.

You know what they say about that road to hell, I assume.... All that paving is not done accidentally.

 

[kathylove]

If the laws were passed on a strictly logical, "cost vs. benefit" (how much cost in freedom or economic terms to how many individuals, vs. how much benefit in safety, economics, etc, to what percentage of the uninvolved population?), then we would probably have a set of very workable laws that I could respect.

Unfortunately, most laws seem to get passed as an emotional reaction to some real or perceived problem, mainly so that the lawmakers voting on it can say to their constituents "See, I did something about ____ problem! Vote for me!" Of course, the chances are that each vote to restrict freedom on guns, animals, or whatever, will probably be about as effective as the Prohibition of alcohol, or the similar drug laws passed later to "solve" those problems. But it sounds good, gets votes, or pacifies vocal special interest groups with lots of money and ability to influence votes, so that is all that is really important, right?

Sorry if it sounds as though I am burned out on BIG GOVERNMENT - because I AM!

 

[Rich Z]

I would be happy just to see new laws proposed HAVE to undergo a constitutionality test before even being voted on. AND all of the representatives who vote for such laws accept personal liability for any damages that their decisions might inflict on their constituents. As it stands now, there is pretty much NO accountability except to maybe not get re-elected next time around.

 

[kathylove]

EXACTLY!

What will you be running for (in your "retirement")? I will vote for you, Rich!!

 

[ciara]

Maybe this is nit-picking, but the slippery slope argument, as it is often used, is a fallacy. Wikipedia has an excellent explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Basically, what is amounts to is that A does not inevitably lead to D. Sometimes there is middle ground to be found at B or C. If you can show that B and C will, without a doubt, occur then it is not a fallacy, but simply assuming A leads to D is.

 

[Rich Z]

What will you be running for (in your "retirement")? I will vote for you, Rich!!

I will be running for the record for the most time spent in a rocking chair on the front porch....... :laugh:

 

[kathylove]

Sure, I agree...

when they are speaking about trees falling down, or any other mathematical or scientific event. But when you introduce human emotion and human nature, it changes everything. Just like human emotions can change the "reality" of the stock market ("perception is reality"), it can make the "slippery slope" come true, IMO.

Of course, "A" doesn't ALWAYS lead to "Z" just because you took step "B". But if human nature is involved, it makes total sense to me that it would be a start in the "right direction" to convince people they need to get to "Z" eventually. I think you would have to talk to more psychologists than mathematicians to predict what happens in those cases.

 

[kathylove]

"I will be running for the record for the most time spent in a rocking chair on the front porch....... "

Sure, for the first 6 months! But that will get old faster than you think, I bet! THEN you can run for something - change the world, lol! Give them the benefit of all of those years trying to make it as an entrepreneur in an increasingly hostile environment!