Gun control

[For the love of the game 56]

I'm not sufficiently versed in the subject to come up with a meaningful answer to that. As a layman, the only thing I can do is look at proposed legislation and decide if I support it or not.

 

Ok, so NY now has a 7 bullet max in a gun. Would you support something like that if it was in your state? Why or why not.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I am not debating that they have more influence, maybe the degree of more influence, but that is it. I previously stated they have the 2nd ammendment to stand on as well, which adds to there influence and power doesnt it?

 

I'm again not understanding your point. The constitutionality of any law is decided by the Supreme Court, not Congress or lobbying groups. The 2nd amendment is vague enough that you can argue either way on most gun laws. It would be hard to predict which way the Supreme Court would rule on any given piece of legislation. But that doesn't even come up until the legislation is actually passed into law. The power the NRA has is in being able to stop it from even getting to that point.

 

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Ok, so NY now has a 7 bullet max in a gun. Would you support something like that if it was in your state? Why or why not.

 

That seems like an example of "Hey, we did something about gun violence!" but at the same time I don't understand why a gun enthusiast would care about that either. That would fit squarely into the category of things that I really don't care about either way.

[Crazyhorse81 242]

Since I've yet to hear of a story of the US military intentionally driving a tank through a private residence, I'm going to say hell yes, I trust them with those systems. I sure as hell wouldn't trust a private citizen with one....or a mortar system either for that matter. I don't give a damn how well trained or responsible they are with them. Can you imagine the kind of damage that could be done with a system like that if it fell in the wrong hands? A psycho with a little army training could destroy an entire school and HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING AWAY WITH IT!

 

While we are speaking of tanks, I'm curious what you think would happen if you attempted to "defend yourself against tyranny" with an AR-15 against that tank? In the highly unlikely event that the citizens of this country ever have to defend themselves against the military, your AR-15 is going to be just as effective as a shotgun, handgun, hunting rifle or the numerous other perfectly legal guns.....ie not very effective because you will probably be dead.

 

Lets cut through the BS here. Most of the people that scream "I need my gun to defend myself against the government" know that is just nonsense. These guns aren't used for hunting. They aren't really practical for home defense. People don't carry them on their person for self defense. People own these guns for 2 reasons. Most own them because they like to go out into the woods and shoot s*** because shooting s*** is fun. A small minority of people own them because they want to cause as much harm to as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time. If the cost of keeping these kinds of guns out of the hands of lunatics is you have to reload a few more times when you are in the woods shooting other, completely legal guns, well; I can live with that.

 

All military members were private citizens at one point and they all become private citizens again after their service. And your apprehension with private citizens owning heavy weapons is understandable, but I don't get it. Like I said, in other nations, a 14 year old walks around with a fully automatic weapon. Yet no one craps themselves when they see him. The problem here in America isn't a weapons problem, it's a mental health problem. The nutjob who shot up that school stole the weapons from someone else. There wasn't a law on the books that stopped that from happening and there are no laws that ever will, short of banning guns altogether. Which still won't work, because criminals will still keep theirs, and have the ability to sell them to anyone for the right price.

 

Also, your AR-15 v tank battle isn't as one sided as you think. You use a sniper to make sure that tank is buttoned up, and there's nothing stopping you from running up to one from a side the cannon is NOT facing, and placing explosives on the treads and running away. A tank that can't move isn't much of a threat. By the way, the AR-15 is totally legal and should not be illegal. It is functionally no different than any other semi-automatic rifle, you just don't like it because it "looks" dangerous. I think that's the worst kind of argument there can be. It's like saying a pink Hello Kitty revolver that fires a .50cal round faster than an M-4 is okay, because it's pink and has Hello Kitty on it, or maybe little flower stickers on it.

 

Again, would you really, and I mean REALLY, be bent out of shape if you knew I had an M252? You say you don't care how well trained or responsible they are with a weapon system like that, but that, to me, smacks of dealing purely with emotion and not using logic. If someone is responsible with them, they aren't going to use them to level a school. And that psycho you mentioned can kill people using anything and everything they can get their hands on. Don't forget that 9/11 was done with simple boxcutters. OKC bombing was fertilizer. There are more deaths per year from hammers than there are weapons like the AR-15.

 

If your goal is to make everyone safer, then you need to ban just about everything there is. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, can be improvised into a weapon that can be used to kill someone. So, for me, the gun control argument isn't about safety, since more people die because of car accidents, yet there's nothing on the table about banning them, it's about controlling the people. Yes, the average American will not really be able to stand up to the might of the US military, yet there's two things you're missing: first, you can at least go out on more even terms and take one of them with you, and an even more important second point, which is if that balloon really DOES go up, the 100% participation by the military on the side of the Government is NOT guaranteed.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

since more people die because of car accidents, yet there's nothing on the table about banning them

 

No, but there have been hundreds of laws regarding whose allowed to operate them, what condition they must be in to be allowed to operate them, how old they have to be to operate them, whether or not people with certain criminal records are allowed to operate them, a license with a mandatory test for capacity before you can legally operate them, and hundreds of safety standards for their construction to make them safer.

 

In addition, there have been thousands of changes to how roadside objects are engineered to better ensure the safety of the drivers of cars and their passengers.

 

You're not allowed to drive a car with giant metal buzzsaw wings on either side of it because the law says that such a vehicle is comically unsafe and unnecessary for any use you'd have for a car. You're right that no one is saying you should ban cars, but no one is saying we should ban guns either. What people are saying is that certain types of weapons and weapon accessories serve no real constructive purpose and have very real negative consequences when in the wrong hands. And since there is no real constructive purpose to have them legally, why give an opportunity for people to have them for illegal means?

 

As for your point about deaths by hammers(actually it's all "blunt instruments", not just hammers), that whole argument is idiotic because it misses the forest for the trees. In most cases, when a blunt instrument is used in a murder it's being used as a weapon of opportunity. If the argument is that everyone should have a gun because hey, who'll risk hitting you with a hammer if everyone has a gun, the answer is going to be: "No one, because now the gun they're already carrying is the weapon of opportunity. They'll just wait until your back is turned and shoot you, rather than waiting until you're back was turned and hitting you with a wrench(or candlestick. Or leadpipe. Or whatever)"

 

You have to actually think things through sometimes, guys. There may be a direct correlation between drowning deaths and ice cream sales(and there is), but that doesn't mean that eating ice cream makes you a bad swimmer.

[For the love of the game 56]

I'm again not understanding your point. The constitutionality of any law is decided by the Supreme Court, not Congress or lobbying groups. The 2nd amendment is vague enough that you can argue either way on most gun laws. It would be hard to predict which way the Supreme Court would rule on any given piece of legislation. But that doesn't even come up until the legislation is actually passed into law. The power the NRA has is in being able to stop it from even getting to that point.

 

I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on.

 

Maybe we have no real disagreement other than the degree of power the NRA has.

[For the love of the game 56]

That seems like an example of "Hey, we did something about gun violence!" but at the same time I don't understand why a gun enthusiast would care about that either. That would fit squarely into the category of things that I really don't care about either way.

 

I am not really a gun enthusiast, just believe in the right to own one. I do not fear life and I not constantly worrying or fritting about anything, but feel more protected with a gun. With regards to the 7 bullet limit it come down to how many people are committing a crime against you. Obviously the more severely outmanned you are, the more screwed you are, but lets say 3 bad people are coming at you. You have already called 911 and they are on the way. You put two in bad guy 1 and he goes down, 3 in bad guy 2 and he flees, 1 in bad guy 3 but miss your last shot. Btw bad guy three has an illegal firearm that has ten bullets and he has used the 3 shooting at me. That were it would matter to me.

 

Oh and not that I am not enjoying our conversations, but you have repeated several different times that you really don't care either way, so why are you still going at with me? I know you could be doing it because you can or have nothing better to do and thats all good. Are you just saying you dont care?

 

Again, I am enjoying this and at least we are keeping it civil.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

Maybe we have no real disagreement other than the degree of power the NRA has.

 

How would you characterize it?

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I am not really a gun enthusiast, just believe in the right to own one. I do not fear life and I not constantly worrying or fritting about anything, but feel more protected with a gun. With regards to the 7 bullet limit it come down to how many people are committing a crime against you. Obviously the more severely outmanned you are, the more screwed you are, but lets say 3 bad people are coming at you. You have already called 911 and they are on the way. You put two in bad guy 1 and he goes down, 3 in bad guy 2 and he flees, 1 in bad guy 3 but miss your last shot. Btw bad guy three has an illegal firearm that has ten bullets and he has used the 3 shooting at me. That were it would matter to me.

 

Oh and not that I am not enjoying our conversations, but you have repeated several different times that you really don't care either way, so why are you still going at with me? I know you could be doing it because you can or have nothing better to do and thats all good. Are you just saying you dont care?

 

Again, I am enjoying this and at least we are keeping it civil.

 

I don't care about particular laws. That doesn't mean I don't care about the issue in general.

 

Different perspectives are always important in any discussion. It's not about winning or losing the argument, but about being exposed to different opinions and amending your views accordingly. That doesn't mean you'll always amend them to be more like the other person's view. But maybe the other person brings up a point that you hadn't considered before and it causes you to think more about your own position. This is a good thing and it means you aren't just sitting in an echo chamber listening only to people who share your views.

[For the love of the game 56]

How would you characterize it?

 

I really do not know. We have both acknowledge there are lobbiests on both side and I agreed with your point the NRA has the most power. Corruption of the system is what fuels there power, I think, so how corrupt is the system?

 

Your first comment was that the NRA would never all it. I just do not think the NRA has that much power that something is never allowed to pass.

 

I want to bring back a comment I made that the media has a role in the frenzy that you stated the NRA is causing. I do agree there is a frenzy which I think is sort of scary. I mean I have read law enforcement agencies are even finding shortages. How many stories nightly due you hear of shooting with a least several follow ups the next day. When there is a tragedy the coverage can be overdone and nonstop (I am not making light of the situation, noth that you would think I am, as they are truly horrible things) But how much times do you hear about the good guy winning and if you do, its off the news the next day. Does that not stir the pot so to speak, increasing the frenzy.

[Crazyhorse81 242]

No, but there have been hundreds of laws regarding whose allowed to operate them, what condition they must be in to be allowed to operate them, how old they have to be to operate them, whether or not people with certain criminal records are allowed to operate them, a license with a mandatory test for capacity before you can legally operate them, and hundreds of safety standards for their construction to make them safer.

 

In addition, there have been thousands of changes to how roadside objects are engineered to better ensure the safety of the drivers of cars and their passengers.

 

You're not allowed to drive a car with giant metal buzzsaw wings on either side of it because the law says that such a vehicle is comically unsafe and unnecessary for any use you'd have for a car. You're right that no one is saying you should ban cars, but no one is saying we should ban guns either. What people are saying is that certain types of weapons and weapon accessories serve no real constructive purpose and have very real negative consequences when in the wrong hands. And since there is no real constructive purpose to have them legally, why give an opportunity for people to have them for illegal means?

 

As for your point about deaths by hammers(actually it's all "blunt instruments", not just hammers), that whole argument is idiotic because it misses the forest for the trees. In most cases, when a blunt instrument is used in a murder it's being used as a weapon of opportunity. If the argument is that everyone should have a gun because hey, who'll risk hitting you with a hammer if everyone has a gun, the answer is going to be: "No one, because now the gun they're already carrying is the weapon of opportunity. They'll just wait until your back is turned and shoot you, rather than waiting until you're back was turned and hitting you with a wrench(or candlestick. Or leadpipe. Or whatever)"

 

You have to actually think things through sometimes, guys. There may be a direct correlation between drowning deaths and ice cream sales(and there is), but that doesn't mean that eating ice cream makes you a bad swimmer.

 

And none of those laws prevent someone from getting behind the wheel of a vehicle they are not capable of operating safety, and killing people with them. This is the same argument as the gun control ones. There are already laws in place. They won't stop people from committing crimes with guns by those who want to commit crimes with guns. When that idiot walked onto the school grounds, there was no force-field generated by the "gun free zone" sign that prevented his ingress.

 

Once again, everything can be used for evil if evil people use them. A gun is a tool. Even an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine. And also, once again, the argument against a SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLE like the AR-15 is based purely on what the weapon looks like. The M1A rifle is the civilian version of the M-14 used by the military. It is a semi-automatic rifle that can be equipped with a 30-round magazine. Why isn't that being talked about? Because it doesn't LOOK dangerous. And that's what we, as a society, have been conditioned to recognize: the appearance rather than the performance.

 

The second amendment does NOT contain words about hunting. It does NOT contain words about protecting your house from criminals. "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." There is no ambiguity here. The ability of the people to be Free depends on that right to keep and bear arms. The People will never be subjects so long as we have the ability to fight back. To those ends, we must be allowed to be equipped similarly to what we will face.

 

I understand those who don't like it. But you're terrified of the wrong thing. Be afraid of the evil, not the tool. And just because it makes you wet yourself that someone might have a M2 on a tripod in their backyard does NOT mean he shouldn't have one, if he proves mentally capable of possessing it. People own all manner of devices that can cause mass killings, from cars to boats to even airplanes. Why is there no objection to that? Well, that's because they don't look as "dangerous" as something like an AR-15.

 

Granted, I don't know any of you on this board first hand, so long as you've proven to be mentally competent and proficient, I would have no problem with you owning any weapon system you'd want, short of NBC weapons. If you, DOM, wanted to have a 240, or an M4 w/203, then go for it.

 

By the way, everyone has overlooked the fact that tanks and mortar systems and whatnot are pretty darn expensive, and that even after coming up with the money to get the system itself, the ammo is a whole other ballgame. All in all, even if they were perfectly legal, how many private citizens do you see rushing out to buy an M1A2? Or an Apache? Or the ammo or fuel for one? What you would probably see is 240s and 249s and maybe a ma-deuce or two. And like I said, assuming you are right in the head and aren't going to use them to mow down innocents, what's the big deal in having one?

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

I really do not know. We have both acknowledge there are lobbiests on both side and I agreed with your point the NRA has the most power. Corruption of the system is what fuels there power, I think, so how corrupt is the system?

 

Your first comment was that the NRA would never all it. I just do not think the NRA has that much power that something is never allowed to pass.

 

I want to bring back a comment I made that the media has a role in the frenzy that you stated the NRA is causing. I do agree there is a frenzy which I think is sort of scary. I mean I have read law enforcement agencies are even finding shortages. How many stories nightly due you hear of shooting with a least several follow ups the next day. When there is a tragedy the coverage can be overdone and nonstop (I am not making light of the situation, noth that you would think I am, as they are truly horrible things) But how much times do you hear about the good guy winning and if you do, its off the news the next day. Does that not stir the pot so to speak, increasing the frenzy.

 

The comment I made was about telling people to prepare for a civil war because the government is coming to take everyone's guns away. If you can point me to a non-Fox News media outlet that is promoting that idea, I'll admit that I was wrong to say that's all coming from the pro-gun people.

 

I don't think people on your side of the debate have anything to worry about anyway. The democrats are notoriously inept at actually implementing their own policies. They would have to get any new legislation passed in the House, and that's not going to happen.

 

This whole thing is a bunch of chest-beating and hyperbole. Once the dust settles, not much will actually have changed. If it does, you can quote this post and I will owe you a Coke.