Tippmann Paintball Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > News And Views > Thoughts and Opinions
  New Posts New Posts
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Gun control
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 15>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Bugg View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
One screw up and all screen names go

Joined: 16 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 33 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bugg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 8:15am
Originally posted by Zesty Zesty wrote:

^If that is in fact true, I would like to see the statistics on how many shootins their are involving young people, and how many of those guns were legally obtained.
Might take a while to find the stats, but I do know thatno matter what laws are in place, if someone wants a gun they will get it, so lifting the assault weaposn ban really did nothing but help normal people get guns
Back to Top
Zesty View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Guested - 3 Strikes and hes out

Joined: 05 October 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6050 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zesty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 8:12am
^If that is in fact true, I would like to see the statistics on how many shootins their are involving young people, and how many of those guns were legally obtained.
Back to Top
Bugg View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
One screw up and all screen names go

Joined: 16 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 33 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bugg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 7:46am
In Michigan, if you are 12 or older and don't have a felony on your record... you can legally apply/own a hand gun
Back to Top
whoknowswho View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 08 September 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 411 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote whoknowswho Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 7:45am
I don't oppose the idea of suggesting training for people wanting firearms. I know that some people should never have access to a gun as they are, to put it bluntly, too stupid and reckless to use them wisely and safely. I would be very, very careful about making it mandatory though. It could be too easily abused: "Sorry, even though you got 100% of the written right, you didn't demonstrate good firearms safety in the hands on section. You fail." That could easily become an end-around to ban guns without using legislation. Familiarity with your firearm is of paramount importance both for safety and usability. If you just bought a gun and have never used one before, I highly suggest you go to your local shooting range and have an instructor help you out. Even your basic hunter safety course (I live in OK, don't know what your states have in place) is great for learning the basics.
Back to Top
Bugg View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
One screw up and all screen names go

Joined: 16 February 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 33 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bugg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 7:34am
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

I support the troops, but it seems as if too many people act as if the police are there to hinder rather than help.
Thats why i said I put cops up with soldiers, they both put lives on the line every day and doon't get enough thanks (like paintball refs)

Granted, some cops might disagree, cops aren't in the type of danger troops are, but they do deserve the same amout of respect and gratitude
Back to Top
SR_Crewchief View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2663 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SR_Crewchief Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 6:21am
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:


The right to bear arms ... is about keeping the ultimate right of veto in the hands of the average citizen.  It is about the militia (colonial definition-white male landowners; commonly accepted current definition-citizens over the age of 18) being equipped to get the attention of an unresponsive/tyranical government the same way the colonies got the attention of the British back in the 1700s. 



That's your opinion, but I am not sure that it is correct. 


The law is not clear on this, but the principal Supreme Court case on the subject (US v. Miller) ruled that a citizen did NOT have a 2d Amendment right to own a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon was not of "militia type".


But "militia" is a word that the NRA has loved to take out of context.  It appears elsewhere in the Constitution, in Article I, granting Congress the authority "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; ..."  (emphasis added)


According to the Constitution, and US v. Miller, a militia is apparently something that serves the government, not something that opposes it.


But, like I said, that law is not very clear on this subject.



Nice out of context yourself. That's Article 1 Section 8 where the base power of congress are initially defined. It does nothing to define what "militia" means. Generally at the time (circa 1791) militia ment all able bodied men in the community gathering for the common protection of the community. From this basis the National Guard eventually evolved as a more permenent organization.

And you've specifically overlooked the Second Amendment. Which 3 basic purposes:
1) Insure the rights of the people to form militia's
2) Insure the rights of the people to possess firearms (happens to neatly support the first purpose without defining firearms by type, much less defining it being solely for the purpose of an armed militia)
3) Insures that first two purposes are not to be overridden. (this one has been severly trampled on)

What is implied but not specified is that with these rights come responsibility. The responsibility to exercise good judgement when exercising these rights. The same responsibility to exercise good judgement with exercising ANY rights or privilages.

The big problem is that as a people most have lost sight of this.
Back to Top
SR_Crewchief View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2663 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SR_Crewchief Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 5:39am
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Those statistics are extremely selective, Traveler, misleadingly so.  You need to present opposing numbers as well (of which there are plenty).  What you are posting is so out of context as to be meaningless.  Not only that, but the stats that you do post don't even necessarily lead to the conclusions you ascribe to them.  Bad, bad statistics usage.


There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that increasing gun ownership will reduce crime.


As to rights vs. privileges - I use car driving as a comparison of the system I envision, not because of any legal similarities.  And the 2d amendment says you get to have a gun (generally speaking) - it doesn't say that there cannot be restrictions.  Even rights are subject to moderation.



"Amendment II.

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.

a ratified effective December 15, 1791"

A lot of legislation that has been put in place since technically violates the "shall not be infringed" wording since there has not been a later amendment changing it.

And as something else to ponder, if you are going to challenge someone presentation of statistics, present your own statistical research and interpretation. Otherwise your counter doesn't hold much value.
Back to Top
merc View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
American Scotchy

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: VA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 7112 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote merc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 1:49am
west coast sucks...
saving the world, one warship at a time.
Back to Top
Slothbutt View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Can’t find the short bus

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2617 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slothbutt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 12:36am
Originally posted by Zesty Zesty wrote:

Safe room? How much is that gonna cost to truly have a "safe" room?

What's your opinion of safe?

Mine is a 12guage Winchester Defender leaning in the corner...yours is a safe room.

You can have your safety and I can have mine, no need for one or the other, or for my standard of safety to be the same as yours.


wow..me too The securty system..

Our gun rights are being slowly chipped away here in CA. No normal cap mags, mandatory handgun registration, no .50bmg, no AR-15, no AK clones to name a few. Basicly if it looks scary we can't get it.
My Paintball Guns
New "Toys"
Back to Top
Dune View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
<placeholder>

Joined: 05 February 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 4347 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Dune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 12:20am
Zesty, you were extremely harsh on police. As I believe though, speeding by an officer is only sometimes bad because all humans do it. It seems as if you were trying to attack officers while leaving your precious troops to be glorified by the rest of the U.S. I support the troops, but it seems as if too many people act as if the police are there to hinder rather than help.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 12:07am

Those statistics are extremely selective, Traveler, misleadingly so.  You need to present opposing numbers as well (of which there are plenty).  What you are posting is so out of context as to be meaningless.  Not only that, but the stats that you do post don't even necessarily lead to the conclusions you ascribe to them.  Bad, bad statistics usage.

There is not sufficient evidence to conclude that increasing gun ownership will reduce crime.

As to rights vs. privileges - I use car driving as a comparison of the system I envision, not because of any legal similarities.  And the 2d amendment says you get to have a gun (generally speaking) - it doesn't say that there cannot be restrictions.  Even rights are subject to moderation.



Edited by Clark Kent
Back to Top
TRAVELER View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member

Vulcan Logic Academy Graduate

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 1503 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TRAVELER Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 12:00am
[QUOTE=Clark Kent]

Zesty - it is possible that I underestimate the number of true "gun grabbers".  I don't live in California...

As to changes - I am more or less happy with my local rules, although we don't have CC (I am not sure how I feel about CC anyway).  The one big thing I would really like to change would be mandatory training before getting a gun.  You need to know how to drive to get in the car; you should have to know how to shoot to be getting a gun.  Essentially I would favor "driver's ed" for firearms.

Exactly how much training and what kind, I am not sure.  But few things frighten me more than a bunch of people packing who have never fired their guns.

[/QUOTE

The difference is that driving a car is a privilege, regulated by the states, owning a gun is a right, guaranteed by the constitution.

Has anyone cared to wonder why so many states are beginning to issue carry permits to their citizens? Because it works, crime has decreased in every stated that has adopted a shall issue permit program.

Can you guess which states have the highest rates of firearm violence? Those states are the ones that severely restrict gun ownership, or ban it outright.

Since Great Britain outlawed private ownership of handguns, violent crime, and crimes committed with firearms have skyrocketed, to a point that they now surpass our own crime rates. (on a per capita basis)

One thing that states that issue permits also have in common is that they require applicants to have completed a firearms safety course. Applicants must also pass background checks, take a class on the proper use of deadly force in self defence, and so on.

 
For I will wander to and fro,
I'll go where I no one do know,
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 April 2005 at 8:30pm

Zesty - it is possible that I underestimate the number of true "gun grabbers".  I don't live in California...

As to changes - I am more or less happy with my local rules, although we don't have CC (I am not sure how I feel about CC anyway).  The one big thing I would really like to change would be mandatory training before getting a gun.  You need to know how to drive to get in the car; you should have to know how to shoot to be getting a gun.  Essentially I would favor "driver's ed" for firearms.

Exactly how much training and what kind, I am not sure.  But few things frighten me more than a bunch of people packing who have never fired their guns.
Back to Top
Zesty View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Guested - 3 Strikes and hes out

Joined: 05 October 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6050 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zesty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 April 2005 at 6:01pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by whoknowswho whoknowswho wrote:


I have one question for anyone that wants to ban guns:


This is evidence of the extreme and irrational closed-mindedness that is so common around this issue. The NRA has done a wonderful job of convincing many people that there is this vast conspiracy of "gun grabbers" out there that wants to "ban guns".


VIRTUALLY NOBODY WANTS TO "BAN GUNS". Certainly nobody on this forum wants to. I doubt you will find more than a few thousand people in the entire US that want to "ban guns".


The only discussion is about the appropriate level of restriction, not "banning". Talking about how "they" want to ban the guns is counterproductive and a waste of our time.

Clark, I actually see some sense in your argument. I do not think everybody wants to ban guns, but I think you are grossly UNDER-estimating the amount of people that would choose to ban guns.

My position is that I think the current gun laws in my state, California, are sufficient. I would actually like to see some more options for gun ownership(such as class 3 weapons) for people who choose to go through more testing/training and pay for the registration. I am very much in favor and supportive of pro-CCW laws and think that as many healthy-minded, law-abiding people as possible should be allowed to carry a weapon anytime, anywhere.
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

How is it fair that you can shoot a cop because he can shoot you? That might be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. Cops just don't go around shooting people for no reason. Granted, not all cops are good, but that is no reason to arm the public AGAINST the police.
I can't speak for everyone else, but I can say that I am not looking to arm myself SPECIFICALLY for the police. I want to be armed for anybody that may harm me, and if that includes a police officer that has gone astray of the law, hen that's the way it is. I say the more honest, law-abiding citizens that have guns the better.[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Guns don't kill people, irresponsible people do. Irresponsible being anyone that thinks that just because they're law-abiding they can leave their loaded weapon around their kids.


Like I said, Gun Education.....but I guess nobody cares about being "Solutions-Oriented" anymore.

I guess LEO's like to draw conclusions and assumptions just like us regular people.

If a person is "law-abiding" then why would a police officer have a problem with them? I mean, the citizen is doing everything within the limits of the laws which the officer is sworn to uphold.

I don't think leaving a loaded gun in reach of a child is "law-abiding" in very many states.
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

I agree that the nation needs new training for law enforcement in dealing with special circumstances. However, that doesn't make it right for all cops to fear for their lives even more than we already do. I recently watched a fellow officer almost kill a young boy because he was holding an airsoft pistol and when the cop pulled his weapon, because the fake one looked real, the boy threw both hands infront of him. The officer was a veteran, so he halted, but if it would have been a rookie, the kid would have been killed. If more people on the streets have real guns, I would hate to imagine the war.
Then outlaw Airsoft guns then! I don't see how your story reflects anything bad on guns.
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

You're right, As I have said before, I do not ask because I have no reasonable suspicion. However, rarely do people know this and you can usually ask and get an honest response with no one's feelings getting hurt.
Nice, way to take advantage of people's trust.
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Yeah it happens, and isn't the right thing to do a lot of the time.

Uh, "a lot of the time"? Didn't you mean "anytime"? You are a police officer, right? Don't you respect the law enough to uphold it "ALL the time"?

Edited by Zesty
Back to Top
Zesty View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Guested - 3 Strikes and hes out

Joined: 05 October 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6050 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zesty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 April 2005 at 6:00pm
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

I feel as if people truly believe that they are going to be victimized and actually need a weapon to protect themselves. It is the owning of these weapons that allows for the death of so many innocents each year, but "we gotta have 'em to protect are material goods."


I'm sorry, but you are extremely naive in my opinion. The guns are out there. If they aren't already in the USA, they will be illegally imported. Supply and demand. You outlaw guns, all you do is increase the price people will pay by decreasing the available supply!

So you are gonna take the guns away from the people who believe in following the law, and the people who really want a gun, and want to commit a crime with a gun get it at a higher price(supporting black markets) and victimize the average citizen even easier because they know that they aren't properly armed.
Back to Top
Zesty View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Guested - 3 Strikes and hes out

Joined: 05 October 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6050 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zesty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 April 2005 at 5:55pm
Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

Originally posted by Zesty Zesty wrote:

I think it's about safety and personal desires.....why does it have to be one or the other?


It doesn't.  If you want to carry gun purely for fun, that's fine.  But people should be honest with themselves.


All I am suggesting is that many/most people have an unrealistic view of exactly how safe their gun makes them.  They think their unloaded pistol under the mattress makes them invincible.  Many people don't plan for reality - they plan for fantasy, but they THINK they are planning for reality.



I see your point and agree....as with most things, people need to be educated and basically "soak some game" from someone smarter than themself. That's why I suggest the mandatory Gun Education classes in school, but I get no response....it seems I'm the only one that actually cares to look for an answer!

And it's not even my problem.

What are some changes you guys would like to see?

Back to Top
Zesty View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Guested - 3 Strikes and hes out

Joined: 05 October 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6050 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zesty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 April 2005 at 5:50pm
Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

This is just too stupid to start combating. You really know that cops against CCW are all crooked, or did your parents tell you that? Come one, there is no respect for law enforcement anymore, and we're just trying not to get shot by those who claim "better safe than sorry." Law-abiding citizens have bad days, stress out, do stupid stuff, and consequentially, may end up shooting and officer to avoid arrest. It happens...a lot.



The line about the crooked cops was a joke, but actually has some deep-down meaning.

I feel if guns were to be outlawed or more severe restrictions put on them, people who do have access to guns, will have the opportunity to abuse those people who don't....it's alot easier to be rude to someone when you know you're carrying and he's not.

I hate to tell you, but police officers have "bad days" and get "stressed out" just like us normal folk! If anything, they have a more stressful job that would lead them to be less mentally stable, and work in an environment where they can push people around without much reprocussions.

Sorry if I offend you, that's not my intention, I'm just a harsh person, and I disagree with you....try not to take it so personal.

I form my own opinions just like I hope you do, and I would hope you respect them as I respect yours.

I am of legal gun owning age for both longguns and handguns, and I exercise my right to do so.

Your job is to uphold that right so long as I don't break the law.
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 April 2005 at 3:41pm
Good lord the NRA is so insipid.
Back to Top
Tae Kwon Do View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Best Forumer of the Year 2006

Joined: 30 July 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6120 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tae Kwon Do Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 April 2005 at 3:36pm
http://www.nrablacklist.com/

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 April 2005 at 3:03pm
Then stab them with the shards...    :)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 15>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.406 seconds.