Answer to firearms ownership laws?

Toivo: I was not arguing for "rational" gun control. I was addressing what you had said in your previous statement. You seemed to be suggesting that additional controls were reasonable and rational. My feeling was that the laws that we already have COULD already be considered (by you) as reasonable and rational. (Not trying to put words in your mouth.) Not new or more stingent laws, say restricting the para-military type weapons. I don't want a ban on "scary rifles" as the ban has absolutely no impact on crime. The same applies to the 50 cal. target rifles. Why else would you want restrictions? I don't feel that there needs to be ANY more restrictions and in fact would like to see some restrictions abolished. I do not like the states legislating their own laws as applied to firearms.

I stand by our constitution as it stands now which says the right to bear arms without infringement.

I do not want to "market" the "middle" unless it is to educate them that gun restrictions only in fact reduce their given constitutional rights. I do not believe in allowing any more restrictions on firearm ownership or use. Allowing restrictions only points the path toward eventual confiscation or seriously reducing the lawful ability to use a firearm for any use, hunting, personal defense, target shooting, etc. The anti-gun movement seeks the total elimination of the right to own firearms in the US. NO MORE RESTRICTIVE FIREARM LAWS.
 
I was not arguing for "rational" gun control. I was addressing what you had said in your previous statement.
Click to expand...
I didn't think you were--I think you misunderstood me to be saying that I'm in favor of bans on semi-auto firearms. I didn't say that. What I meant was that the hardline position that NO class of weapons should be restricted can create anti-gun feeling in the "middle."

My feeling was that the laws that we already have COULD already be considered (by you) as reasonable and rational.
Click to expand...
I do feel that the current laws are *for the most part* reasonable. (I say "for the most part" because I think that some areas have handgun restrictions that penalize law-abiding gun owners while having no effect on crime.) I'm not clear on whether you agree or whether you believe, for example, that exploding projectiles and full auto weapons should be unrestricted. I personally think that there are valid public safety reasons to keep such weapons out of general circulation, even though that could be construed as an infringement of rights.
 
Uh huh. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except where toivo thinks it's reasonable."

It isn't as if the founders didn't know of the existence of the word "reasonable." They included a form of it in Amendment 4, but not in Amendment 1 or 2. I wonder why. Could it possibly be that there are no "reasonable" restrictions on any of the rights in the first two amendments? That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that preemptive restrictions on firearms are overbroad and affect the law-abiding much more than the lawless, would it?

There are social and personal costs to firearms ownership. Firearms accidents happen. Criminals steal legal guns, though they could acquire guns in other ways, and use them to commit crimes. It's amazing that anti-gun liberals are unwilling to accept those costs, but vehemently oppose any "reasonable" weakening of the 4th amendment. Aside from preventing an occasional abuse, the 4th amendment does very little obvious good, yet allows hordes of criminals to get away with their crimes, or at least delays the application of justice.
 
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except where toivo thinks it's reasonable."
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, I think that the restrictions on exploding projectiles and full-auto weapons are reasonable in the interest of public safety. However, I didn't write that particular legislation. I'm not the one oppressing you--I'm just telling you that I don't feel oppressed.

Yes, there are social costs to firearms ownership, and we are agreed that certain costs are worth bearing in the interest of freedom. But in my opinion the social cost of having the above-mentioned weapons generally available would be too great. Bad guys WOULD get their hands on them, and our cities would start to look like Baghdad.
 
Yes, there are social costs to firearms ownership, and we are agreed that certain costs are worth bearing in the interest of freedom. But in my opinion the social cost of having the above-mentioned weapons generally available would be too great. Bad guys WOULD get their hands on them, and our cities would start to look like Baghdad.
Click to expand...


Sorry to tell you this, but the bad guys can get there hands on whatever they want.... That is why they are called bad guys, they dont care about legislation - they have no respect for your rules or societies rules for that matter. Get it - the bad guys are called bad guys because they break the laws. Further legislation wont stop them - its like trying to use logic to stop a child from throwing a tantrum. The bad guys dont pay attention, they do what they want to achieve whatever goal they have at the moment...
 
Yes, there are social costs to firearms ownership, and we are agreed that certain costs are worth bearing in the interest of freedom. But in my opinion the social cost of having the above-mentioned weapons generally available would be too great. Bad guys WOULD get their hands on them, and our cities would start to look like Baghdad.
Click to expand...
Aparently, the anti's (and some others) always fail to realize the obvious. If drugs and illegal aliens can be smuggled into this country with almost no hinderance, then so can guns, rockets launchers, exploding ammo and whatever they want. The anti's always say that criminals get their guns from gun owners through straw purchases or theft. What they never say, is that once the guns are regulated out of existence, the smugglers will get more of their profits from gun smugling and we will have an epidemic of criminals with full auto weapons used against a defensless populace.

I do not like most of the self proclaimed militias of the Midwest and West country's politics and purposes, but I see an absolute need for them in many circumstances. While I don't believe that this country will have a government that will be run by another Hitler or be invaded by a foreign power in my lifetime, I would like to see those self proclaimed militias have those rocket launchers to fight the Hitler like ruler or to fight the foreign invaders that our military couldn't do by themselves. So yes, I see a few reasons why we should have exploding ammo and exploding weapons available to the populace.

Yes, I agree with jburtonpdx and I disagree with you. (with all due respect)
 
While I don't believe that this country will have a government that will be run by another Hitler or be invaded by a foreign power in my lifetime, I would like to see those self proclaimed militias have those rocket launchers to fight the Hitler like ruler or to fight the foreign invaders that our military couldn't do by themselves.
Click to expand...
I guess this is where I disagree--I'm not comfortable with a "self proclaimed" militia. The Constitution specifies a "well-regulated" miltia. This suggests governmental sanction at some level, whether state, county, municipality, etc. Also, I have a pretty high level of confidence in our military--the only time you'd need the kind of decentralized guerilla war that militias could wage would be if we had already lost the Big One, and I frankly don't see that happening.

I know that our borders are porous and the market in illegal weapons is big, but right now RPG's, etc., are just too rare and expensive for the average BG to have access to them. I don't mean terrorist types with connections and deep pockets; I'm talking about drug gangs, etc. With a consumer market in these weapons, prices would be lower and supply would be higher. I believe that's a valid public safety issue.

I'd say a Second Amendment case could be made for local governments to have their own militias, down to the county and municipality level. This would provide protection against tyrannical government without compromising public safety.
 
I'd say a Second Amendment case could be made for local governments to have their own militias, down to the county and municipality level. This would provide protection against tyrannical government without compromising public safety.
Click to expand...


You are kidding yourself. If the feds decided a lockdown was needed there is nothing even the state guards could do to stand up to it. We have no real method of standing up to the US military if it were to turn on its own citizens. The only defense is raising our kids to think for themselves and hope that if something as horrible as that were to happen they would tell the powers that be where to go...

There is something to be said for raising your kids to question and challenge authority. That is what this country is founded on - a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The truly disturbing thing to me about the direction of the legislation is that they seem to forget who it is they are supposed to serve. The feds are supposed to answer to the citizens of the US, not the other way around.

The solution is to stop looking for a regulated Utopia provided by the government. Allow freedom of choice accept that there is a level of risk associated with the freedoms we should have and take personal responsibility for our own safety. Change the current attitude in the government. Support the first government official that makes it his/her business to repeal costly and freedom limiting legislation.
 
If the feds decided a lockdown was needed there is nothing even the state guards could do to stand up to it. We have no real method of standing up to the US military if it were to turn on its own citizens.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that it's useless for citizens to arm themselves against potential government tyranny. That pretty much undercuts the argument in favor of private ownership of military weapons--exploding projectiles, full-auto weapons, etc. I think that the militia as envisioned by the founding fathers was a far more localized institution than the current state guard units. But it wasn't one-man armies.
 
jburtonpdx said "The solution is to stop looking for a regulated Utopia provided by the government. Allow freedom of choice accept that there is a level of risk associated with the freedoms we should have and take personal responsibility for our own safety. Change the current attitude in the government. Support the first government official that makes it his/her business to repeal costly and freedom limiting legislation." Amen!

Too many look to the government for solutions to problems the government created in the first place. Nothing will ever replace personal responsibility.

Gun control measures are not rational or reasonable because those advocating them are neither. Gun Control advocates are nothing more than feel-good utopian dreamers who believe the world can be what they want if they wish it enough, and or continue to smoke the same plant matter they did in the sixties. Politicians who advocate robbing the populace of their rights, while they are protected by body guards with machine guns, are among the worst of hypocrites.

I grew up in Canada for several years, have personally seen the camel's nose under the tent become the camel's a$$ too. Crime is skyrocketing there and in the UK and Australia as well, while the people are robbed of their ability to defend themselves.

I have seen what the gun grabbers want, and I say for now and forever
NO COMPROMISE!

Now is the time to put the antis on the defensive. Flood the house and senate with pro-gun legislation so the antis are looking to compromise. Let them look to choose the "lesser of two evils" Start with:
Repeal the '86 Machine gun freeze.
National right to carry.
Repeal the extortionist taxes on guns and ammunition unless it's used for voluntary civilian weapons training.

Let's go on the offensive. These gun grabbing idiots have been shown for what hypocrites they are, their agenda is well known, their "solutions" are a sham.

there, I fell better after that little rant
thanks
 
So you're saying that it's useless for citizens to arm themselves against potential government tyranny. That pretty much undercuts the argument in favor of private ownership of military weapons--exploding projectiles, full-auto weapons, etc. I think that the militia as envisioned by the founding fathers was a far more localized institution than the current state guard units. But it wasn't one-man armies.
Click to expand...

That is not what I said. Below is what I said

You are kidding yourself. If the feds decided a lockdown was needed there is nothing even the state guards could do to stand up to it. We have no real method of standing up to the US military if it were to turn on its own citizens. The only defense is raising our kids to think for themselves and hope that if something as horrible as that were to happen they would tell the powers that be where to go...
Click to expand...

Please do not try and interprete my words - you are not capable of reading my mind. Take what I said for what it is not what you would prefer it to mean.

I dont debate well and should not have started responding but have to put one more word in.

I believe what I said, that does not make it correct or absolute or right.

I also believe that we do have the right and that the founding fathers did in fact envision the individuals owning the arms that made up the militia.

I also do believe that the militia envisioned was loosely maintained by a regional government.

The ownership of the tools by the individual would keep the power or control of the tool in the hands of the citizen and not the government as we have today.

I believe that people are capable of making rational decisions with individual power and that they do not need oversight by a government interested in micromanaging the lives of its citizens.

The point is this - constitution or not just because something is not legal does not prevent it from existing. People with suspended drivers licenses drive very often...

As I said before criminals dont care about the law, that is why they are called criminals. I will follow the law like it or not, that means I am not a criminal. I also follow the safety rules when it comes to firearms, always loaded, never point at anything that I dont want to destroy, finger off the trigger untill I am on target, and not loaded when not in use (refer to the first rule). Do you think that I would do anything less with any other tool that has the potential to damage somebody? We need to give more people more credit. Most people are reasonable and would make the correct decision in a given situation. If not you should also consider outlawing bandsaws, drills, nailguns, baseball bats, baseballs, ballbearings, anything that could be used to make a slingshot, aircompressors, bleach, amonia, aluminum cans, fingernail clippers, flashlights, martial arts classes, wrestling at school, boxing, I could go on for a very long time...
 
I know that our borders are porous and the market in illegal weapons is big, but right now RPG's, etc., are just too rare and expensive for the average BG to have access to them. I don't mean terrorist types with connections and deep pockets; I'm talking about drug gangs, etc. With a consumer market in these weapons, prices would be lower and supply would be higher. I believe that's a valid public safety issue.
Click to expand...
But let me assure you that it is not just terrorist who are going to buy these, but the Chinese, Japanese, and Russian mafias and the South American gangs here that are going to smuggle these things in at such a pace that they will be cheap. All they need is a larger market to get them to start with smaller guns and then move on to the big stuff (IMO).

Regulating the guns out of existence will create the need for the smuggling of guns to grow bigger than it is now.


Although I do not seeing the fall of our government in my lifetime, I do see the possibility of it being controlled or run by a president who was given stronger powers than they have now that would be dangerous and threatening to a large section of the citizenry. This has hapenned so many times in history that we should know that, no matter how confident we are in our current state of affairs, everything could change quickly. As an example, even if you completely agree with the republican party and their ideals, you may have to agree with the fact that their near total control of all three branches of government can lead to a dictatorship within this democracy (for at least 2 years). The republicans may not be abusing this near total control (or they may be), but if they can do it, then so can the New Hitler Party in 50 years or so. Eleven years ago, if someone said that there was a possibility that just a dozen or so people could criple this country for three days and kill more than 3,000 Americans, would you have thought it was possible? I asked my sister almost the same thing 12-15 years ago, and she did not think it was possible and thought that I and others who even considered things such as that, as kooks.

I really don't think that we will fall to a foreign power, or that we will be under the control of a Hitler-esque type of president (and his congress and judiciary), but one of the reasons I don't think this will happen is that so many people have guns that could fight something like this from happening and also, that is one of the reasons some countries have not tried to invade us (I believe). Do you think that Hitler would have thought more carefully about the plan to invade Britain if he knew that every Joe Blow citizen had a Sten gun and a rocket launcher?

We lose our guns, we risk losing the ability to fight the unseen problems in the future. The reasons for banning gunsor regulating them out of use for claims of public safety in the short run is a compromise that we should !!never!! be willing to take or allow.
 
"So you're saying that it's useless for citizens to arm themselves against potential government tyranny."

I would not agree with that statement, but that notwithstanding, guarding against a tyrannical domestic government is not the only reason to keep and bear arms.

Even in the lifetimes of some here, and certainly in the lifetimes of our parents and grandparents the mere existence of an armed citizenry helped to keep a foreign enemy at bay. No less a person than Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, commander of the entire Japanese Pacific fleet, said that the United States could never be successfully invaded because, in his words, "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Tim
 
No less a person than Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, commander of the entire Japanese Pacific fleet, said that the United States could never be successfully invaded because, in his words, "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Click to expand...
Thanks TimRB, I couldn't recall a good example at the moment and you came through. :)
 
These are more reasonable. :D

Citizens may carry or not at their discretion unless they are elected officials, government contractors or persons on welfare.

These latter shall be required to wear the symbol of government support, a small emblem of a sow suckling her piglets, and may not carry.

Any person who is found to be committing burglery, robbery, forcible rape or other crime of violence, may be killed by any citizen present.

All other crimes are considered torts and are dealt with under the dueling rules.
 
All conventional arms with the exception of those inteaded to cause mass destruction (nukes). All US citizens are able to purchase and own, Age 18, carry anywhere. Exception: Felons who have commited violent felonies or all felons 25 years after the act.

Sound good?

STUDY the constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top