Author Topic: Gun Control  (Read 7350 times)

Offline ifyoucantfixit

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,049
Gun Control
« on: July 21, 2012, 12:35:22 am »

    Due to the overnight incident that happened in Colorado.  There has been again a renewed interest in changing some of our gun
laws.  It is always after these horrible tragedies that these issues arise.  Then slowly but surely they subside.  Until; another incident occurs.  Then we have the talks again.

    Personally I believe the Constitution allows all of us to have guns.  We have the right to have them for personal protection, and
for hunting.  The problem lies as I see it, not with the ability to own guns.  It is with the kind of guns that we have been allowed to
have now.  I hate to keep using this reference, but when I was young.  There was a very strong and completely enforced ban on
(machine) guns,  ie the now type of guns that are repeaters.  Such as the AK47 and the Army issue guns that people have now gotten
the right to have as well.     Personally I believe that the gun lobbly has effectively gotten rid of all gun control.  In the interest of their
own profits and gains.  It is well known how they have effectively forbidden and blocked every single attempt by Congress to make
any change in the gun laws.

    I find no ligitimate reasoning for owning these kinds of mass destruction machines.  They certainly don't have any need for use in
hunting or sport.  The only reason to have one, can be for nothing needed or useful..  It just give anyone that is so inclined, to have an instrument of destruction beyond the ordinary means to oppose.

     If a lone gunman had only a single shot pistol or rifle in hand.  Others may have some opportunity to disarme that person.  In a group
situation, they may be able to take him down, and confiscate his weapon.  But no one in their right mind would attempt such a thing against a weapon that could shoot as many bullets in a succession as those kinds of weapons .

Sorry for all the previous typos.. I did this late at night.  Obviously did not check the typing too well...
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 06:56:27 pm by ifyoucantfixit »



     Beautiful mind

Offline David In Indy

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,447
  • You've Got Male
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2012, 04:54:10 am »
#3, 4 and 6.

With ownership comes responsibility.

And to be perfectly honest with you, I wouldn't mind seeing them banned altogether. Other countries have done it and they are doing just fine.

Tighten the restrictions - GREATLY - or ban firearms across the board.  :P

Dogs have owners. Cats have staff.

Offline jackofalltrades

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 20
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2012, 04:19:51 pm »
One of my neighbors has a number of guns, including an AK-47. His job takes him on the road for as much as a week at a time.

First of all, what possible use is there for an assault rifle in a heavily populated suburban area?

Second of all, he leaves these guns in his closet, totally unsecured. No gun safe, no nothing. He doesn't have an alarm or any heavy-duty kind of locks or doors. Anyone could break in and there would be more guns on the street.

Most of the people I know that have guns have gotten them out of fear, and fear is never a good mix with firearms. Law enforcement, yes. Average citizen, no. I believe even the police aren't armed in England, and they don't have nearly the violent crime level we do.
Maybe Texas?

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,675
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2012, 04:43:37 pm »
One of my neighbors has a number of guns, including an AK-47. His job takes him on the road for as much as a week at a time.

First of all, what possible use is there for an assault rifle in a heavily populated suburban area?

None whatsoever.

Quote
Second of all, he leaves these guns in his closet, totally unsecured. No gun safe, no nothing. He doesn't have an alarm or any heavy-duty kind of locks or doors. Anyone could break in and there would be more guns on the street.

That's appalling and frightening. I hope there are no small children in his family.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2012, 06:54:13 pm »
I didn't find any options that I believe in to choose from.

I believe in MUCH stronger controls on automatic weapons.

I believe in MUCH thorough federal investigation of gun sellers and close audits of their sales and inventory.

I believe in limits to ammunition sold.  NOBODY needs 6000 rounds.  (I feel like bringing up the comedian Chris Rock's solution - leave guns alone but price ammunition at $100 per round.  You leave criminals scrambling to scrounge up money to be able to purchase any).

To be more stringent on background checks means more violations of privacy.  Plus, look at our recent shooter.  He had no history at all of mental illness or criminal activity.  He was just strange.  He would have passed any background check with flying colors.  People sold him guns without hesitation.

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,675
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2012, 09:18:56 pm »
I didn't find any options that I believe in to choose from.

I believe in MUCH stronger controls on automatic weapons.

I believe in MUCH thorough federal investigation of gun sellers and close audits of their sales and inventory.

I believe in limits to ammunition sold.  NOBODY needs 6000 rounds.

I agree with all of these points. In addition, I wish there were some way to stop ammunition sales on the Internet, but that's probably impossible.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline jackofalltrades

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 20
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2012, 12:03:33 am »
Here in Houston there is a gun show almost every weekend. There are no background checks, no limits, and no waiting period. Cash-n-carry.
Maybe Texas?

Offline ifyoucantfixit

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,049
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2012, 07:06:40 pm »


    Well I am sorry that I didn't know more options to present.  I suppose I should have had a other...?  option.  that way people could fill in the blank.
However I think that you are doing that, basically by adding your comments in the reply section.

    I think all of these options should be explored and followed through.  If as you said Dela there was a very high price or tax on the ammo.  There would have to be a great deal of cash involved in having bullets.  Probably would price a lot of people out of the gun carrying group.  I would certainly never want to have to use $100.00 bullets for target practice.  I suppose that would be out of the realm of possibility for getting anyone to agree to a law of that nature however.  I think when Mr Rock placed that option out there.  It was more tongue in cheek, than a real choice he thought would happen.   I do believe we should have much more of a length of time after someone purchases a gun, however until they are allowed to pick it up.  I also do not believe that anyone anywhere has a real ligitimate reason to have those army or police issue guns.  I think they should be the only ones allowed to have them period.  I don't care who disagrees with that idea.. 



     Beautiful mind

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,804
  • I'm marching for her!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #8 on: August 09, 2012, 11:05:40 am »
Janice, I didn't get a chance to vote in this poll. Would you like to reopen it for voting?

There has been a lot of controversy about whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution actually confers the right to any ordinary citizen to bear arms. Here it is:

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.

As I interpret this, the right is extended to the people, as a body, to have a militia (a well regulated one) that is armed, to protect them. In other words, our armed forces, our police, etc. Nowhere does the amendment mention individuals, and it BEGINs with a reference to the militia, so that must be pretty important to the meaning. The second clause refers to the security of a free state, so it must have been very important to the writers that the people should be and feel secure. And when a crazy person can mow you down with a machine gun anywhere, do you feel secure? No.
May 2019 be better for us all.

Offline Mandy21

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,238
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #9 on: August 09, 2012, 11:34:19 am »
That is a grammatically-challenged sentence, to say the least.  The verb, when it finally comes, is in a poorly-chosen place.  I can see where there would be room for interpretation.  I'm sorry I'm just seeing this thread now.  I would have voted before the polls closed.
Dawn is coming,
Open your eyes...

Offline Front-Ranger

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 24,804
  • I'm marching for her!
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #10 on: August 09, 2012, 12:08:30 pm »
True, Mandy. In 2008, the Supreme Court was interpreting this amendment, and Justice Scalia found the right to bear arms to be an individual right "consistent" with the overriding purpose of the 2nd Amendment, to maintain strong state militias.  Scalia wrote that it was essential that the operative clause be consistent with the prefatory clause, but that the prefatory clause did not limit the operative clause.

But why have a prefatory clause at all, if not to modify the operative clause? PLus they conveniently ignored the fact that the amendment does not grant individual rights, only the right of the people, as a body, to be secure through the protection of an armed (and well regulated) militia.
May 2019 be better for us all.

Offline Jeff Wrangler

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 26,675
  • "He somebody you cowboy'd with?"
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2012, 12:36:12 pm »
Janice, I didn't get a chance to vote in this poll. Would you like to reopen it for voting?

There has been a lot of controversy about whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution actually confers the right to any ordinary citizen to bear arms. Here it is:

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.

As I interpret this, the right is extended to the people, as a body, to have a militia (a well regulated one) that is armed, to protect them. In other words, our armed forces, our police, etc. Nowhere does the amendment mention individuals, and it BEGINs with a reference to the militia, so that must be pretty important to the meaning. The second clause refers to the security of a free state, so it must have been very important to the writers that the people should be and feel secure. And when a crazy person can mow you down with a machine gun anywhere, do you feel secure? No.

It is, or was. At the time the amendment was written the U.S. either had no standing army, or else it was a very, very small one (sorry, I forget exactly which was the case). The defense of the states individually and the of the nation as a whole depended on the citizen-soldier militia. Moreover, I think it was the case that before Independence most citizen-soldiers were expected to supply their own weapons, but I could be mistaken about that, or the situation might have varied from colony to colony.

That is a grammatically-challenged sentence, to say the least.  The verb, when it finally comes, is in a poorly-chosen place.  I can see where there would be room for interpretation.

Part--and maybe even a lot--of the trouble is that our usage of the language has evolved since the last decades of the 18th century. The sentence was probably clearer to Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, et al., that it is to us today, unfortunately.
"It is required of every man that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellow-men, and travel far and wide."--Charles Dickens.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2012, 07:40:44 pm »
It is, or was. At the time the amendment was written the U.S. either had no standing army, or else it was a very, very small one (sorry, I forget exactly which was the case). The defense of the states individually and the of the nation as a whole depended on the citizen-soldier militia. Moreover, I think it was the case that before Independence most citizen-soldiers were expected to supply their own weapons, but I could be mistaken about that, or the situation might have varied from colony to colony.


You are correct.  Remember the Founding Fathers admired the ancient Romans.  Especially men like Cincinnatus, the famous Roman.  He was mostly a farmer, who in times of war, became a dictator-soldier, who then resigned his office and went back to farming when peace came.  The new American government wasn't going to provide - or couldn't afford to - these citizen-soldiers with weapons, they had to bring their own.  So if they had to bring their own, it follows that private citizens would be given the approval to have and bear arms.

Offline ifyoucantfixit

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,049
Re: Gun Control
« Reply #13 on: August 09, 2012, 09:45:16 pm »



            I feel that also it is not out of line to believe, that the men of that time were going out on a regular basis and killing the food for their tables.  There was also many wild animals that they had to protect themselves from as well.  Unless they were city dwellers.



     Beautiful mind