Gun control questions - by an outsider...

mikepegg44

Dirtie_Frank wrote:

So where do you stop the banning? Add something, where is the line drawn?

as long as a behavior or object exists, there is someone who wants it banned...

edit

meaning that there is a balancing act that is constantly at play. How much is too much? that is the question that societies must answer over time and is impossible to nail down.

vant0037

unsung wrote:

The founding fathers trusted the people, that's why the wrote the Constitution, to limit the powers of the general (federal) government.

For what it's worth, you'd be dead wrong if you think the Founding Fathers "trusted" the people. John Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, to name a few, all feared the tyranny of the masses almost as much as the tyranny of King George.

John Adams believed a strong federal or central government - along with apportioned states' power and a vibrant set of individual rights - was the only means to ensure that neither men or government could brutalize one another.

Saying that the architects of our political machinery favored one over the other or that they "trusted" people more is at least patently false and at worst a convenient revision of American history.

Godfather.

Linda Burnett, 23, a resident of San Diego, was visiting her in-laws and while there went to a nearby supermarket to pick up some groceries. Later, her husband noticed her sitting in her car in the driveway with the windows rolled up and with her eyes closed, with both hands behind the back of her head. He became concerned and walked over to the car. He noticed that Linda's eyes were now open and she looked very strange. He asked her if she was okay, and Linda replied that she had been shot in the back of the head and had been holding her brains in for over an hour. The husband called the paramedics, who broke into the car because the doors were locked and Linda refused to remove her hands from her head. When they finally got in, they found that Linda had a wad of bread dough on the back of her head. A Pillsbury biscuit canister had exploded from the heat, making a loud noise that sounded like a gunshot, and the wad of dough hit her in the back of her head. When she reached back to find out what it was, she felt the dough and thought it was her brains. She initially passed out, but quickly recovered. Linda is a blonde, a Democrat, and an Obama supporter, but that could all be a coincidence. The defective biscuit canister was analyzed and the expiration date was from 2008, so it was determined to be Bush's fault




Godfather.

unsung

vant0037 wrote:

unsung wrote:

The founding fathers trusted the people, that's why the wrote the Constitution, to limit the powers of the general (federal) government.

For what it's worth, you'd be dead wrong if you think the Founding Fathers "trusted" the people. John Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, to name a few, all feared the tyranny of the masses almost as much as the tyranny of King George.

John Adams believed a strong federal or central government - along with apportioned states' power and a vibrant set of individual rights - was the only means to ensure that neither men or government could brutalize one another.

Saying that the architects of our political machinery favored one over the other or that they "trusted" people more is at least patently false and at worst a convenient revision of American history.

I'm more of a James Madison's side of events myself, but granted even then there were big government proponents. It's inaccurate to say all of the FF were for big govt. To say that they thought of the general govt as equals to the people is far fetched. They didn't even consider the general govt equal to the states.

vant0037

unsung wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

I'm more of a James Madison's side of events myself, but granted even then there were big government proponents. It's inaccurate to say all of the FF were for big govt. To say that they thought of the general govt as equals to the people is far fetched. They didn't even consider the general govt equal to the states.

Who claimed that all of the founding fathers were for big government? You claimed the founding fathers "trusted people," and I corrected you.

Again, you'd be wrong to presume anything uniformly about the founding fathers. Sure, some believed strongly in states' rights, and others didn't.

Where that leaves us is that any uniform conclusion about the beliefs of the founding fathers is false. There were no truly uniform beliefs among them.

In short, saying "the founding fathers trusted people" is false, especially as support for an idea about the proper role of federal government in 2013.

PJPOWER

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

to thirty bills, my main problem with banning assault rifles would be that i don't think it can be done. i know how the black market works, and i just think it would be impossible.

At first... it wouldn't. There is no 'quick fix' to the problem. But in time, especially by restricting ammunition sales for 'illegal weapons'... the guns would dry up and not be so abundant and readily available.

I'm pretty sure we have some 'illegal weapons' in Canada, but they aren't just lying around or on sale at Big 5 Sporting Goods. We have a criminal element and mentally ill people as well that- with some exceptions I'm sure- have no access to these weapons. As a result, Canada is safer. We have accepted the type of reforms necessary to safeguard our citizens. It's out of concern that a Canadian such as myself would encourage you guys to do the same: this isn't about make the gun owners suffer as much as it is about keep your children safe.

Restricting ammunition sales for illegal weapons? I'm not sure I follow. Like restricting all ammunition that can be used in a semi-auto or fully-auto gun? If so...that shows good reason why gun owners do not trust anything that comes out of the anti-gun nut's mouth. Maybe I just misunderstood.

chadwick

just to be clear & understood in full... most gun dealers (small time hobbyists with a few hundred guns) load/reload their own ammo. some haven't bought a box of shells off the shelf in a coons age. in fact, they themselves quite often sell shells to their friends & business associates

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJPOWER wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

goingtoverona wrote:

to thirty bills, my main problem with banning assault rifles would be that i don't think it can be done. i know how the black market works, and i just think it would be impossible.

At first... it wouldn't. There is no 'quick fix' to the problem. But in time, especially by restricting ammunition sales for 'illegal weapons'... the guns would dry up and not be so abundant and readily available.

I'm pretty sure we have some 'illegal weapons' in Canada, but they aren't just lying around or on sale at Big 5 Sporting Goods. We have a criminal element and mentally ill people as well that- with some exceptions I'm sure- have no access to these weapons. As a result, Canada is safer. We have accepted the type of reforms necessary to safeguard our citizens. It's out of concern that a Canadian such as myself would encourage you guys to do the same: this isn't about make the gun owners suffer as much as it is about keep your children safe.

Restricting ammunition sales for illegal weapons? I'm not sure I follow. Like restricting all ammunition that can be used in a semi-auto or fully-auto gun? If so...that shows good reason why gun owners do not trust anything that comes out of the anti-gun nut's mouth. Maybe I just misunderstood.

A banning of assault rifles would be a tricky process. In all likelihood, There would be a 'grandfather' clause for existing 'legal' guns. The ammunition for these types of guns shouldn't be available for any old person walking into Walmart to purchase. There would be restrictions on the sale of such ammunition. I would also think that there would be very strict penalties for those purchasing ammunition for non-registered weapons.

People can't be expected to write essays making what seem like very simple posts that are very easy to understand.

I believe this post marks the first time I have ever heard the expression 'anti-gun nut'. I am assuming one might hear this term at the local landfill while shootin' stuff?

unsung

Thirty, what's an assault rifle?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

Thirty, what's an assault rifle?

Guns essentially designed for military use that shoot quickly such as the AK-47, M-16, and the AR-15.

But you know this and I know what you are getting at. We ban these guns and some manufacturer will get clever and design an alternative weapon that fits within the legal description.

Better people than you or I would need to develop the legal definition to encompass the criteria deemed unnecessary for public use.

dudeman

The problem with banning anything is that only the people interested in staying on the right side of the law will obey new regulations. The laws don't apply to criminals.

Can't we just make it illegal for people to kill each other?

:fp:

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dudeman wrote:

The problem with banning anything is that only the people interested in staying on the right side of the law will obey new regulations. The laws don't apply to criminals.

Can't we just make it illegal for people to kill each other?

:fp:

It is illegal.

In the meantime, let's limit what type of tools people have at their disposal to do harm with.

dudeman

But how do you limit these tools without the regulations only applying to otherwise law-abiding citizens? In other words, how do you make the gang-bangers, drug cartels and mafia thugs give up their guns?

brianlux

I see his picture come up every now and then when my computer is idle for a few minutes and I wonder, if guns had at least been made more difficult to obtain would this friend of mine still be alive? He was shot dead on the street. Just shot dead by some whacko with a gun. Not so uncommon an occurrence here in America. Definitely less common in places like Europe.

dudeman

Sorry about your friend, Brian. I had a similar experience.

brianlux

dudeman wrote:

Sorry about your friend, Brian. I had a similar experience.

Likewise, dudeman. I'm sorry to hear that.

vant0037

dudeman wrote:

But how do you limit these tools without the regulations only applying to otherwise law-abiding citizens? In other words, how do you make the gang-bangers, drug cartels and mafia thugs give up their guns?

You make guns less available (I didn't say "unavailable"). You enforce the regulations you have. You make it more difficult to get weapons (yes, period). You outlaw high-magazine weapons. You close existing loopholes. You fully fund social service and educational efforts at identifying and treating those suffering from mental illness.

Perhaps most importantly, you approach a problem like violence in any form with an open mind.

Government can't be perfect, but it can do a lot better. I wonder how long before people insist that their representatives step outside their ideologies and do what they're paid to do. I wonder how long before the pro-gun lobby is willing to have a reasonable, comprehensive discussion about the problem. (Oh right, "cold dead hand" thing. Got it.).

Restless Soul

brianlux wrote:

I see his picture come up every now and then when my computer is idle for a few minutes and I wonder, if guns had at least been made more difficult to obtain would this friend of mine still be alive? He was shot dead on the street. Just shot dead by some whacko with a gun. Not so uncommon an occurrence here in America. Definitely less common in places like Europe.

Sorry about your friend too.

People seem to be saying that if you ban guns, it won't stop the criminals from using them anyway, Of course not. Criminals will always do things that are illegal, that is why they are called criminals. But this doesn't mean we have to make it easy for them. By banning or at least having more control over guns and who can get them, surely should have some impact on crime figures and lead to an overall reduction in guns being used wrongly, or for wrong purposes. It works in other countries, so why not in America?

chadwick

brianlux wrote:

I see his picture come up every now and then when my computer is idle for a few minutes and I wonder, if guns had at least been made more difficult to obtain would this friend of mine still be alive? He was shot dead on the street. Just shot dead by some whacko with a gun. Not so uncommon an occurrence here in America. Definitely less common in places like Europe.

or less common in places like iowa or south dakota although we get our occasional bullshit. i am sorry for the loss of your friend, brian. he is still around though in spirit. imagine that, your friend being around observing the things you do.

no offence, but um, california is a insane asylum. some places better than others of course.

how is it up in maine? i've always wanted to visit maine & possibly move on in

brianlux

chadwick wrote:

brianlux wrote:

I see his picture come up every now and then when my computer is idle for a few minutes and I wonder, if guns had at least been made more difficult to obtain would this friend of mine still be alive? He was shot dead on the street. Just shot dead by some whacko with a gun. Not so uncommon an occurrence here in America. Definitely less common in places like Europe.

or less common in places like iowa or south dakota although we get our occasional bullshit. i am sorry for the loss of your friend, brian. he is still around though in spirit. imagine that, your friend being around observing the things you do.

no offence, but um, california is a insane asylum. some places better than others of course.

how is it up in maine? i've always wanted to visit maine & possibly move on in

Thanks, Chad.

Yeah, California is a crazy place. We're hoping to get closer to the coast one of these years.

I have a good friend who lives in Freeport Maine- home of L.L. Bean. Other than the cold winters, he likes it a lot. Coastal Maine is beautiful- worth seeing if nothing else. We also have a friend in Rockland, Maine. Visited both towns about 5 years ago and liked them both a lot.