40 Reasons guns should be banned

[Spekkio]

But don't be ridiculous. Irrational fear? The thing on its own can blow off a toe (or worse) if I didn't know what I was doing. Not to mention, the fear isn't so much guns, as bad people with guns. And then it's anything but irrational. Bad people with guns kill people.

So really, you doubt your own ability to handle dangerous objects.

Better not cut your food with a knife, or drive, or use a pen for that matter. All those things could kill someone, you know.

...stuff...Yes, I'm saying (and really deep down believe) if you want to keep anything in the end, you will eventually have to compromise on what the "reasonable" definition of "arms" is and put up with comprehensive background checks. I'm surprised Virginia Tech was not a stronger rallying cry

Is your post for real? As has been pointed out in another thread on here, we live in a Republic that is ruled by laws. The Constitution is that law. Sure, you can "read it anyway you like," but that would just make you wrong. The modern English form of the 2nd Amendment is that everyone has a right to own and carry arms because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of our country. The "well-regulated militia" clause is a modifier used to explain WHY the framers wrote the amendment; it is not a restriction.

Gun control measures make owning a gun a privilege, which is the opposite of a right.

If the fact that we have a RIGHT to own weapons to protect oneself is not a good enough reason for someone (as if there weren't over a hundred more in the link I posted), there's some property in China he can buy.

 

[Spekkio]

oops dp

 

[C420sailor]

Not to mention, the fear isn't so much guns, as bad people with guns. And then it's anything but irrational. Bad people with guns kill people.

OK, so let's ban guns. After all, it worked very well over in England---people just stab the shit out of each other over there. Great solution.

 

[Ajleger]

I actually think falling back to the Constitution is actually a common failing when it comes to arguing against gun control.

words.

Yes, I'm saying (and really deep down believe) if you want to keep anything in the end, you will eventually have to compromise on what the "reasonable" definition of "arms" is and put up with comprehensive background checks. I'm surprised Virginia Tech was not a stronger rallying cry.


Just thoughts, although we all know how dangerous those little things can be...

If you can't use the constitution as an argument about what our basic rights are in this country, then that constitution is meaningless. To me, it isn't.

More importantly, about the Virginia Tech thing... Guess what? Guns were BANNED from Virginia Tech. Law-abiding citizens were not at the time and are not presently allowed to bring their guns on campus. Non-law-abiding citizens do whatever they damn well please. How did that work out?

I know 99% of the people on this thread already know this, but making guns illegal will NEVER stop people who do not follow the law from owning them. Only law abiding citizens. Marijuana and other drugs have been illegal for over 50 years; how has that worked out?

Without legal guns, there WILL most definitely be a black market for them.

 

[bucks87]

So I would put forth another reason for gun ownership. Not one that I or most people have here of course. To defend against a runaway government. A little bit like our country was formed.

This was one of the original purposes for including the second amendment. All of the states-rights people feared federal power and saw this as another check on that power.

 

[C420sailor]

4th generation warfare is really the only way that the people could own back the state if the government decided to really get away from being a republic as some other thread is ranting about right now. The citizenry attempting maneuver warfare would be complete folly, and an insurgency is the only type of warfare that has given our conventional forces trouble.

So I would put forth another reason for gun ownership. Not one that I or most people have here of course. To defend against a runaway government. A little bit like our country was formed.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." -Thomas Jefferson

It is incredible how much our nation resembles the one we revolted from over 232 years ago. I'd be willing to bet the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

 

[mmx1]

It is incredible how much our nation resembles the one we revolted from over 232 years ago. I'd be willing to bet the founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.

Pray tell?

 

[eddie]

Is your post for real? As has been pointed out in another thread on here, we live in a Republic that is ruled by laws. The Constitution is that law. Sure, you can "read it anyway you like," but that would just make you wrong. The modern English form of the 2nd Amendment is that everyone has a right to own and carry arms because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of our country. The "well-regulated militia" clause is a modifier used to explain WHY the framers wrote the amendment; it is not a restriction.

Gun control measures make owning a gun a privilege, which is the opposite of a right.

If the fact that we have a RIGHT to own weapons to protect oneself is not a good enough reason for someone (as if there weren't over a hundred more in the link I posted), there's some property in China he can buy.

Yes, Spekkio, my post is for real. If you want to do anything other than preach to the choir (and I'm not saying you don't need your base), I think a conversation about what our rights actually are and how gun control may interact with them is completely useless. If you want to change people's minds on whether or not it is a good idea to have uninhibited access to firearms, the fact that we already have a right to it means nothing. Good reasons independent of what is allowed and stipulated, however, have proven to be useful and persuasive for me in the past on this issue. I have a right to be an asshole, but that's not much of an reason for actually deciding on and working at being one. Your China comment suggests you disagree strongly. Sorry.

 

[FENIAN]

I am big fan of firearms. Almost too big of a fan. But I also live in the city and not too many people in the city know how to properly handle weapons. Which is one reason why there are so many survivors of shootings because the common belief in the hood is to shoot like Antonio Banderas in Desparado.

(This is going somewhere) Even before I became a Marine, I never really liked automatic weapons for control issues and running out of ammo. Automatic has its place in a fireteam and a squad, as well as defending positions, helos, and blasting the shit out of a tank (one of the few cool things in the Army).

That being said, I have never seen a need for automatic weapons in an urban environment. It's just a matter of opinion I guess. I like well placed shots. But this is the ONLY limit I would ever propose on firearms. I don't think felons rate shit, so that is a different issue.

 

[Spekkio]

Eddie, I don't follow. Are you saying that respecting people's rights is not a good enough reason to allow gun ownership? Or are you saying that anti-gun people are not convinced that this is a good enough reason?

I think that the fact that we were given a right to protect ourselves is the most important reason that law abiding citizens should be allowed to freely purchase any firearms they like. Since the term in the Constitution is "keep and bear," I would stop at anything that a person can carry on his person, but you could argue for any weapon, period. If it's okay to take away this right, where does it stop? Freedom of speech? Right to due process?

Gun control proponents ignore facts, period. It starts with the 2nd amendment, and continues to the laundry list of items outlined in the link I posted previously. It doesn't matter to them that > 98% of gun crimes are comitted with illegally owned firearms, we need more gun control laws!

As for the China comment, I didn't say "you" on purpose, since I wasn't trying to suggest that you should go live in China .

But I also live in the city and not too many people in the city know how to properly handle weapons. Which is one reason why there are so many survivors of shootings because to common belief in the hood is to shoot like Antonio Banderas in Desparado.

Most shootings in the inner city occur with illegally owned firearms. See above.

 

[mmx1]

What he is saying is that "neener neener 2nd Amendment" is a cop-out.

People don't value free speech because it's a protected right, they value it because we've long established that there is value to free speech. It is clearly not a universal or natural right because we are unique among liberal democracies in valuing free speech so highly - as you can see by the hate crime codes in Canada and Europe. Neither is the right to bear arms some inherent natural right. We decided it was important to us as Americans and codified it. To keep it, we need to continue articulating why it remains important.

If your only or main argument is that the right to bear arms is a right because it's in the constitution, then stand by to see that amendment repealed in the future because people no longer see its value.

 

[Spekkio]

It is clearly not a universal or natural right because we are unique among liberal democracies in valuing free speech so highly

There are no natural rights. All rights are created by social contract with government.

If your only or main argument is that the right to bear arms is a right because it's in the constitution, then stand by to see that amendment repealed in the future because people no longer see its value.

For the fourth time, I posted a link with a laundry list of practical reasons why gun ownership is good, but I believe the fact that we have a right to it is the most important one of them all.

 

[FENIAN]

Most shootings in the inner city occur with illegally owned firearms. See above.

Negative. Since personal sales of weapons are not illegal, the majority of firearms used in inner city shootings are not purchased illegally. The majority of murders using stolen weapons is higher, but the weapons as a whole are usually legal transactions. I would bet one of my four year degrees on it because...well I have a degree regarding these issues. The NFA of 1934 limits automatic weapons anyway and my statement was to limit the NFA to Urban settings. Read harder.

 

[Pugs]

But don't be ridiculous. Irrational fear? The thing on its own can blow off a toe (or worse) if I didn't know what I was doing. Not to mention, the fear isn't so much guns, as bad people with guns. And then it's anything but irrational. Bad people with guns kill people.

You want to play with dangerous how about a 3 hp jointer? It's about 99% more likely to hurt me than any of my firearms and I'm damn careful, just like my guns, when I use it.

Bad people with guns are going to be there. Good people with guns can keep them in their place and ensure you and your family is safe.

By the way, bad people with cars kill a lot of people. In fact, I called 911 yesterday on the way home because of a badly driven Durango that I was sure was going to kill himself or others. Police came up from behind me and stopped him and I went home. Got a call from the shift supervisor a couple hours later thanking me for the effort and saying the guy blew a .17 and had three priors. Bad people will do bad things. Don't bother the good people.

 

[mmx1]

There are no natural rights. All rights are created by social contract with government.

What is that line about "unalienable rights"? I swear I've heard that somewhere before.

For the fourth time, I posted a link with a laundry list of practical reasons why gun ownership is good, but I believe the fact that we have a right to it is the most important one of them all.

That's a tautology, isn't it? Why do we have a right to bear arms? Because we have a right to bear arms.

The NFA of 1923 outlaws automatic weapons anyway and my statement was to limit the NFA to Urban settings. Read harder.

You willing to bet your degree on that? You are aware of the $200 tax? It was the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection act that had a rider slipped in that prohibited the transfer of any machine guns not registered by 1986. Not an outright ban, but it certainly did price them out reach for most.