Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Guns are dangerous because they are likely and able to produce harm and they are designed to do that. That is why we carry them for self-defense. BTW I have seen defective guns "go off" by themselves. If you and others here take the position that firearms are no more dangerous than toasters or spoons then I say that is faulty and unreal reasoning and you will never win the public debate with that line of thought and will invite more gun control laws.
I've seen defective automobiles do all sorts of dangerous things on their own, does that mean cars are inherently dangerous. A Ferarri is both able, and in certain hands, likely to break speed limits and do it in a much more efficient manner than most other cars. Should one be required to pay for an extra government permission slip to own a Ferarri as opposed to a Taurus? Almost anything can be dangerous if misused, or defective.
Why don't you go look it up.
Becuase
you made the statement, not me. It is generally thought that the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim.
Things like guns and other inanimate objects are not regulated because they are good or bad but because of the danger to the public safety.
How does the responsible ownership of a gun represent a danger to public safety. I assure you that it's quite easy to own and operate a machinegun without posing any danger to public safety whatsoever. Now, if the machinegun is used in an irresponsible manner it can be a great danger to public safety but so can any number of things. Doesn't it seem like a better idea to punish those who are irresponsible with their guns that to punish them along with the people who are responsible?
Instead of foolishly trying to convince them guns aren't dangerous, I say; Hell Yeah they're dangerous and that is why I practice with them and observe the safety rules and so on. However, I am also a law abiding citizen who will not misuse them and will safely carry them for self-defense and I will submit to some reasonable regulations of that right (like CCW permits).
The problem is that the rest of us don't view many of the regulations as reasonable. Perhaps we should focus more on keeping
any gun out of the hands of
dangerous people than on keeping
certain guns out of the hands of
almost everyone.
The original argument was about what are reasonable restrictions and I go along with the idea of weapons in common use and suitable for civilian self-defense.
Herin lies the rub, how does one decide exactly what weapons are suitable for civilian self-defense? A lot of that is dependant upon who or what a civilian needs to defend himself from. Is it impossible that many weapons not in common use would be if not for the overly restrictive laws pertaining to them? Besides, last time I checked the 2nd Amendment didn't read "the right to keep and bear arms suitable for civilian self-defense shall not be infringed." You still have as of yet to tell us why I should be restricted from owning something that causes no one else any harm nor infringes upon anyone else's rights.
I think the courts and legislatures will agree with me and I think my position is right. Many of you do not and I knew that when I posted but many gun owners like me don't buy into all the progun positions many of you hold that would remove almost every firearm regulation from the books. We don't always post here cause we don't have time to argue with all of you but I post from time to time just to let some of the zealots know there are other opinions. I don't believe in mental orthodoxy and I vote that way too. The gun owner world is a big tent and many of us do not believe there should be no restrictions at all on firearms ownership. Get used to it because we won't vote with you on everything you want.
When have any of us ever proposed getting rid of all firearms regulations? Most of us agree that violent criminals and the dangerously insane should be prohibited from owning a firearm. Likewise most of us agree that the ownership of weapons whose mere presense represents an urgent public safety hazard (like nukes, biological or chemical agents, and certain types of explosives) should be heavily regulated or prohibited. However, a sane, law abiding citizen owning a machinegun fits neither of these criteria so we see no reason for it to be so severely regulated. While this may sound like zealotry to you, I don't believe that the majority of the American public would think so if the reasoning behind it is clearly and calmly explained.
Originally posted by bikerbill
A question for the original poster or anybody else ...
When the 2nd Amendment was written, most of the things mentioned in the OP didn't exist; the "arms" they were referring to were muskets and single shot pistols ... because they could not see into the future, do you feel the wording of the amendment pertains today WITHOUT any controls at all? Should I be able to go buy a fully automatic rifle, based on the wording of the 2nd amendment? Did the founding father imagine a handgun that could carry 15-20 rounds of ammunition that could be fired in just a few seconds?
I'm not making the argument, so don't yell at me ... I'm just raising a question ... and if I was sitting on the Supreme Court, I'd imagine one of my fellow justices might have raised it too ...
While they may or may not have been able to envision the weapons of today, I find it hard to believe that the Framers, who were brilliant enough to produce an elastic constitution that's lasted two centuries, didn't give any consideration to advances in weapons design. As I've stated earlier I believe that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an explanation of the purpose of the amendment rather than instruction for its execution. Tyranny is typically carried out by military force, and what better weapon to combat military force than a military weapon.
Originally posted by Tenessee Gentleman
Nor does it say civilians have a right to own whatever weapons the military has either.
Actually, it does. It says "the right to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed beyond reason" because what one person finds reasonable may be quite unreasonable to the next. As I've stated before, so long as a weapon's mere presence represents no public safety hazard, it falls under the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
Quote:
Okay. 67% of homicides are gun related. 25% of gunshot wounds are fatal. DOJ
My point is made.
Does anyone have a link? So does 67% mean that 67% of homicides are comitted with a gun or just that a gun was involved somehow or another (i.e someone was trying to steal one and stabbed it rightful owner)? "Gun related" sounds sucspiciously vauge to me.