Gun Control

Toad2001 · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Are you saying it is two separate statements? Amendment II - Right to bear arms: 1) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and 2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If so, I mis-read that.

SS MAYFLOAT · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

11,500 a year in fatal gun accidents, Sad thing is around 17,500 fatalites in auto accidents. All from responsible citizens. I'm just curious to the number of cars vs guns owned in the US? If there are more guns and less deaths when it is less cars and more deaths, something is wrong here. The liberal idiots need to teach people how to drive. Another view, 29,000 people die yearly due to stupid actions. I would think money could be used more wisely making people drive safely than on gun control. Gun or car. Do you trust the man with the gun coming at you on the sidewalk, or do you trust the operator of the semi truck that is coming at you on a narrow two lane highway doing 70mph. Whats the odds that you'll get shot, or hit by the truck? SS

JB · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Another of those threads where every possible argument that has been presented gets presented again. . .and again. . .and again. It gets really boring. Try something new for a change.

Boomyal · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Yes Toad, two parts in plain english. 1) "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, (plus) 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms, (neither of which) shall not be infringed." Notice how Militia is capitalized representing a formal group and people is not capitalized representing the individual as opposed to the collective use. Also note, in Article IV, the use of the word people. " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects~~~~~~~~" Also a clear use of the word 'people', meaning the individual. As I said, the Constitution is very uniform in its use of the word people. The founders would not have used it collectively in one use and singularly in all of the rest of them. I don't recall how many times 'people' is used in the Constitution but it is many and all of them are clearly used in the individual not the collective meaning.

Toad2001 · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Boomyal, You don't have to take that sarcastic tone with me. I'm entitled to my view, and you to yours. The ammendment didn't have part 1 and 2, with an "also" or a "plus", so a bit of interpretation could be had on it's wording. I read it as all to do with supporting the Militia. Thanks for clarifying. Amendment II - Right to bear arms: 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.

Homerr · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Yes, JB...I thought the same thing when I seen the post today. Oh well... Let them hash it out. H.

Skinnywater · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

It's going to be real difficult to explain when the words of Dennis Miller is revered more then the words of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

(humor) Toad, type in The Federalist papers it's all explained there. Excellent reading, it'll enlighten you on the ways a lot of us think and feel on a lot of subjects.

Boomyal · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Really didn't mean to come off sarcastic toward you Toad. It's just that it is often claimed that the 2nd amendment empowers state Militias only, when the construction of the sentence clearly states two different objects that stand alone with the closing contention. I just broke it up to make easier to be read correctly.

Boomyal · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

SS Mayfloat, all good points but I think your figure of firearms deaths is way high. I could be mistaken but I'd like to see the source for that. One thing that I can say with a certainty, if you subtract out the mumber of deaths, by firearms, that occur from criminal use of guns, the number is in the hundreds.

SS MAYFLOAT · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Boomyal, I'm for keeping an using our guns. I just feel that those that want to control guns would have better luck in traffic enforcement. BTW, I got the gun deaths in this topic of the 11,500. The auto deaths was posted several months ago. The total if 29,000 is the both added together. Our cars are becoming like dodge cars at the amusement park. Making them safer so that idiots that don't deserve to drive can. Those safty devices is what has driven the price of cars up. Just as guns, it is the operator that pulls the trigger, not the gun itself. Same as the operator of the car. I have driven hundreds of thousands of miles accident free while other people I know can't go 10,000 miles between accidents. The cell phone is now another item that distracts the operator from his main priority while he is driving. Its weird that nobody argues my point over guns vs cars when it comes to something that can be prevented. JB, I know how you feel about these trolls. I've been around just about as long as you. It is the same thing over again, but by diffferent members. It is sorta like the same old boat motor problem that gets posted, Is that a troll? All you can do is read on or post your thoughts about it. SS

pjc · Dec 10, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Here is an opinion I am not aware of being posted regarding the gun control issue. Wisconsin just completed the yearly gun whitetail hunt. Over 600,000 some firearm bearing citizens scattered across the state. Some armed with high power center fire rifles-bolt action, semi auto, pump, single shot, lever action. Some armed with slug firing shotguns-and- some bearing large caliber high power hand guns. All are expected to be responsable regarding the firearms use. And better than 99+ % are. These people also keep these firearms in their households and some (me) shoot them yearound. Responsable ownership imo. I can't post exact numbers, but, during that same time as the deer gun hunt, more shootings and killings occured in the Milwaukee urban than in the state as a whole. Occures every year. Imo, the focus of the firearm issue should be aimed at geographic areas where the gun violence predomantly occures. Yep, though I expect reprisal--I'll say it--the inner cities of states across the nation. And don't think I'm pointing at the race thing 'cause in these areas a mix of races live there and gunning each other down. Or shooting each others houses up-as in drive bys. Of course, it would not be "fair" to focus on pointed geographic locations-profiling and all that crap ya know. Instead the anti gun zealots would rather affect all with their initiatives than fix the minority who are the source of the majority of firearm violence.

JasonJ · Dec 11, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Violence is violence. As long as we have been on this earth, we have strived to inflict injury and death on each other. The gun issue is irrelevant. Get rid of guns, we'll just go back to knives. Get rid of knives, we'll go back to clubs. Get rid of clubs and we'll be right back killing each other with our bare hands. Like has already been said, it isn't the guns that are killing, it is our own human nature....

mellowyellow · Dec 11, 2003

Re: Gun Control

for all of you who are really interested in this subject, I highly reccomend you rent a movie that was done by Michael Moore (directer of the movie "rodger and me" about GM and it's impact on auto workers) the movie is called "bowling for columbine" and is about the gun control issue. while I don't agree with his philosophies on lotsa issues, I must admit that he takes on gun control from a completely different angle. I found it very interesting.

plywoody · Dec 11, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Yes, JB, that exact same Simon Fraser University study has been posted here before. What it says is gun deaths--as opposed to violent crimes. The vast majority of the gun deaths in Canada are due to suicide--with guns. Whether or not you like the way Canada does it or not, and I don't, the fact remains that gun control does indeed, in the Canada example, reduce violent gun related crimes. I do think it is vast overkill to register every firearm owned by every legitimate sportsman, as Canada has recently imposed. And the studies done were before that law took effect, in any event, and my guess is that the huge bureaucracy created to register these legitimate sporting arms amounts to a ton of money for very little, if any, tangible benefit. Still, if we really wanted to reduce gun related crimes in this country, we could, and the Canadian example is proof. The constitutionality argument is a moot one, as there are already controls on guns on the books that have been upheld by the courts. The only real question is how far to go, and how to do it, if the goal is to reduce violent crime.

lundboat · Dec 11, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Ken, What exactly did I say that you disagree with? I said numerous times in my post that I am a gun owner and support the right for good citizens to own guns. I'm just asking the question, "What's the point behind auto assault rifles?" I'm asking because I want to know, and I want to hear it from the community who owns them and wants to keep them. So, people just like you. I want you to tell me why you want those kinds of guns, why are they important to you? The gun lobby tells me, but I see their point of view as being tainted by money and greed, so I take their point of view with a grain of salt. Your point of view on the other hand might be worth something to me. Because I doubt you stand to make a profit from it. I absolutely believe that by their being a lot of good citizens who own guns that it deters crime. I believe that it at least deters a crime from beint commited in my house. My weopon of choice for protection is a shotgun. A Remington 870 to be exact, I've got 5 shots, and its purpose is to protect my home and family. I think we're on the same page here.

Boomyal · Dec 11, 2003

Re: Gun Control

If you have any desire to see the true facts surounding gun deaths in the US, check out this link. This site looks at the issue in relation to the rest of the world. It gets beyond the sound bite use of statistics that the Left uses in it's continued attempt to relieve you of any personal power and choice. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Homerr · Dec 11, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Well Lundboat... In a nutshell: I own ASSAULT rifles because I CAN. Period. And they are darn fun to shoot, especially at a fleeing jack-rabbit or coyote! If there is something the government wants to take away, I want it. Freedom I think is the appropriate word here. And just like most of us have said, if the legal law abiding citizen can't have an assault rifle... Guess who will? I don't know about you, but if the scumbag criminal has an assault rifle, I'd rather face him with his own medicine! I also have a shotgun at my side (Mossberg 500) Another excellent choice for home defense. Nothing scares the hell out of a person more than the simple looks of an AR15 or AK.

H.

Carphunter · Dec 11, 2003

Re: Gun Control

I agree with Homerr 100%. I agree that by allowing certain firearms to be outlawed, we are ultimately heading toward outlawing ALL firearms. I love to deerhunt. Here in Indiana we are not allowed to bait deer, or run deer with dogs. I would never dream of hunting deer that way, yet this is perfectly accepted and legal in other states. But let me tell you, I would fight for everything I was worth defending their rights to hunt this way. Same goes for firearms. I may not have or personally use any so-called assault rifles, but I will defend your right to own them, if you choose. Remember what happened in Germany when they decided that registering firearms was a good idea. In case you forgot, all registered firearms were taken from the citizens as Hitler started his campaign for world domination. BTW, I have a Marlin .22 that is considered an assault rifle because it has an 18 shot capicity. LOL. Best squirrel gun I ever had. I guess maybe that particular gun was assaulting too many squirrels for the tree-huggers.

(I guess I lied above, I do have an assault rifle, LOL).

grampa's toy · Dec 11, 2003

Re: Gun Control

I take my second amendment rights seriously. I even vote that way too, and abortion. It seem a shame that both sides have secondary agendas' on this issue, and both make good points but cloud the issues by selectivly quoting numbers that support their side, also taking an all or none attitude.most gun control groups are funded mainly by wealthy people who make no bones that their ultimate goal is to eliminate all legal gun ownership. That scares me! Over 2 million people use a gun or threat of one to protect themselves or property every year, how many would be another staticstic.Every country that registered every gun ended up confiscating them. If we allow the guns we personally don't like to be banned who will be left to support us when we are the only ones left? I can't give you the site but I read an artical that you have a better chance of dying from medical malpractice than a gun.I don't think everyone should have guns, but I defend their right to do so. If we don't guard the second amendment. will free speech be far behind?

Kenneth Brown · Dec 11, 2003

Re: Gun Control

Ok, I'll try. I am on the fence about the fully auto guns. I don't really think the average person has enough sense to have one but I hate to see the govt take them away. You did know that me and you both can have one correct? You have to file with the govt and pay a tax every year. The cheif law enforcement officer (read Cheif or Sheriff) has to approve it. Its called a class 3 liscense I believe. Whenever this country was founded it was done so by good ole boys with their guns. Whenever the 2nd amendment was written it was done to insure that if this country should ever have to be "started over" that the citizens would have the ability to do so. I carry a Beretta 9mm with 1 17 rd clip in the well, and 2 15 rounders in the pouch. I also have 2 10 rounders that stay in the trunk. I carry all of these with me in my personal car all the time. In my truck there is a S&W 686 357 mag that stays in it all the time. There is usually a .22 rifle with it. My "home protection" gun is a little short Mossberg 410 pump loaded with #9 shot. I choose it over the others for the intimidation and safety factor. Whenever you rack a round it sounds tough, makes you get somewhere. For the safety part it carries a very light load. I will fire it inside the house if absolutely neccasary. The dust round I use will not (hopefully, and I have tested it on an building) go through walls. Having 2 small children in my home requires this. This gun will not generally kill with one shot, it just keeps the family safe from others, while not putting them at an unneccasary risk. Gun control issues just tear me up. Sorry if I offend anyone, but this is an area that I am very vocal about.

Gun Control

Chief Petty Officer

Admiral

Honorary Moderator Emeritus

Supreme Mariner

Chief Petty Officer

Commander

Commander

Supreme Mariner

Supreme Mariner

Admiral

Lieutenant Commander

Rear Admiral

Vice Admiral

Senior Chief Petty Officer

Petty Officer 3rd Class

Supreme Mariner

Commander

Commander

Seaman

Captain