Title noted, I will check it out.

I despise the NRA. Anybody who really respects firearms will have nothing to do with them.

There are also many other books out that totally debunk all the pro gun control arguments. Which leads us right back to where we started and what everyones personal belief is.  I think we need to enforce the laws we have and watch the criminals more than the guns.  Look what happens in Brittan.

WGP guy wrote: Badsmitty wrote: Why have guns?  To rise up when your gubment takes away rights?  Oh wait, we already have the Patriot Act, mandatory random drug testing in the workplace and are holding "terrorists" without any legal representation.  At least clay pigeons are being kept in check. Well, guns are fun to shoot.  I don't really know what you were implying there if anything, but I don't hunt, I just find joy in going to the shooting range and shooting targets.  Its just fun.

Ok. Crack is fun to smoke. Why isnt it ok?

WGP guy wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: WGP guy wrote: Badsmitty wrote: Why have guns?  To rise up when your gubment takes away rights?  Oh wait, we already have the Patriot Act, mandatory random drug testing in the workplace and are holding "terrorists" without any legal representation.  At least clay pigeons are being kept in check. Well, guns are fun to shoot.  I don't really know what you were implying there if anything, but I don't hunt, I just find joy in going to the shooting range and shooting targets.  Its just fun. Ok. Crack is fun to smoke. Why isnt it ok? Because...its bad for you?  I don't know.  Most people that have guns don't use them in ways that harm others.  Crack harms you.  So you can't really compare that.  Crack is always going to harm you, guns used in the right way won't hurt anyone.

They both have the potential to kill you. Even if it isnt on purpose, a bullet in the head is bad for your health.

What about pot? Pot dosent always harm people, should we make that OK?

5ptcontingency wrote: Dune wrote: I just don't see reasons as to why own so many guns unless your profession requires it. Hunting, of course, but there has to be a limit on something. There is no need for AK-47's to be on the street, even if they are fun to shoot. There is no possible way to ensure that only responsible people own guns, so talking in that manner is only a pipe dream. But, why does AK-47 come to mind when you think of a dangerous firearm? The only legal AK-47 (unless you have the appropriate license) are semi-automatic. Disregarding the type of round the gun fires, it is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle, or handgun at close range.

You're very correct. I used it as an example of a gun not normally used for any other reason. You are right, but distinctions need to be made between weapons and appropriate usages for them. Such as shotguns and high powered rifles, which do have the ability to kill anything, but are primarily used for hunting. I am not for taking all guns away, but cutting into their amount might cut down the violence. Therefore, you can better control the guns still out there.

Bunkered wrote: I just read a great piece that debunks just about every major argument you anti-gun folk spout out... It's called the United States Constitution. For those of us who believe in our rights, it is a great read.

Chewp bring up a good point. Its in our constitution, so its one of our rights, right? right. But does anyone remember the simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun? Lisa says something to him about gun control, and homer says one of the most correct things he may have ever said, or ever will say.

He sais that we have the right to bear arms in case the king of england comes in and begins pushing us around. I didnt realize it at the time, but he is correct. The reason we have the right to bear arms is because when the constitution was being written, we were trying to gain our independence...and the fathers of this country wanted us to be able to protect ourselves if the brittish showed up at our doorstep. They meant nothing of having guns for fun or because they looked cool.

Hence, there should be a restraint put on some weapons.

And chewp, im not calling you out or anything, but there has been alot of using the constitution as a protection for rights that wasnt meant for us to have by the writers of the document...such as free speech, right to bear arms...etc.

Ha....im a moron. I guess he was just on my mind or something. I dont see why though.

Anyway, you're correct. Its just annoying to see people using the bill of rights as an excuse to own assault weapons, or in school and use feedom of speech as an excuse to to call the teacher an asshole.

5ptcontingency wrote: The term "gun control" is too broad.

Best sentence in this entire thread.

NOBODY is simply against all gun control.  NOBODY.  The only question is "how much, and what kind"?

If we truly had NO gun control, then a retarded 7-year-old felon would be able to walk into the local 7-11 and buy an RPG, and carry it around with him, pointing it wherever he pleases.  Anybody who doesn't think that should be legal is not truly "against" gun control.

Talking about being "for" or "against" gun control is just silly.

Darur wrote: Remember why the colonists came here in the first place?  To sum it up, Their government sucked.

Weeeeell....  that may be true for some colonists, but most folks that came over did so because they were looking for work, food, or a better life.  Nothing like a really long drought to make you want to take a boat ride.

Then, of course, there are the millions of colonists that came here in shackles.  I know which government they thought sucked the most.

Darur wrote: By the same token, WITH gun control it is potentially possible to entirely outlaw guns so you have a police force running around with bows and arrows.  I mean c'mon, its politicians deciding these things, do you REALLY expect them to use common sense?

Yes.

It's fun to make jokes, but most of the time the government acts fairly rationally, or at least in tune with public sentiment.  Most people agree with most of the criminal laws.  Most people agree with most traffic laws.  Fundamentally, most people agree with most things that the government (at any level) does.  We just make a really big fuss about a few things.

Sure, it's "possible" to outlaw all guns.  It's just not realistically likely.

But - my point was simply that people who are simply "against gun control" are idiots.  Everybody favors some degree of gun control.  All we are debating is how much, and what kind.

^^^^^^   Old...

Time for some new slogans.

Criminals don't follow laws. So who will be disarmed with the addition of more laws?  Honest people that register their guns with law enforcement.  If some of you don't want to be able to protect your families from an intruder that's your choice. 

Lightningbolt wrote: Criminals don't follow laws.

Gah! 

Enough with the slogans!!  This is a horrible "argument", and always has been!

By this theory, we shouldn't bother with laws against murder, since murderers won't obey them anyway.

By this theory, we shouldn't bother with any laws at all, because some people won't obey them.  Dumb dumb dumb dumb.

Besides, beyond being dumb, this "argument" is obviously false, and completely irrelevant to boot, since many gun control laws work indirectly anyway.

Hey!

Gun-Control

Instead of worrying about getting trashed for my 21st birthday...I'll be gettin' my CCW!

Then I'll be carryin' two Colt 45's in a dual shoulder holster!

I'm already goin' on Repo-Runs...plannin' on movin' into Bounty Hunting here before long...prolly withing the next year or two.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
-Adolph Hitler, 1935.

TheUnknown. wrote: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" -Adolph Hitler, 1935.

Another random slogan...

Some people spend too much time on the NRA website, and not enough time thinking originally.

Now all we need is somebody to say "Guns don't kill people.  People kill people."

WGP guy wrote: Why would you enter a potentially hostile situation without being sure you would be able to help?  Thats putting 2 more lives on the line.  The people around didn't seem to take notice, so I assumed it was a boyfriend.  This guy looked about 40, but we were at least 200 feet away.

There are oh so many things wrong with this.

You appear to believe that a gun is the only difference between helping and not helping.  Both parts of that are problematic.

You can help with a cell phone.  You can help by yelling loudly.  You can help by noting the plate number.  If you need to satisfy your machismo, you can help by rasslin' the guy to the ground.  You can help by following in your car, or in a cab (and you get to yell "follow that car!").  And so on, depending on the particulars of the situation.

If you had a gun, would you go charging in?  Sounds like the situation was quite ambiguous, and you were far away.  Do you plan on taking pot shots at 200 feet with a pistol, into a potential hostage situation with bystanders?  Do you plan on shooting before you fully understand the situtation?  Do you plan on running across the street with gun drawn in public (which might get you shot by another vigilante, in a cruel twist of fate)?  Would you try to confront the guy, now having found your courage, and try to outdraw him, old West style, if he has a shootin' iron too?  What exactly do you expect to accomplish with your gun in this scenario?

Here's what this sounds like to me:  Father sees questionable situation, and doesn't have the gumption to do anything about it.  Not wanting to appear weak in front of his kid, daddy pulls off a lame line about "son, I wouda helpt her, but I don't got my gun."

Fact is, most of the best ways to "help" in this situation have absolutely nothing to do with guns, and everything to do with brains, eyes, quick decisions, and perhaps a cell phone.

Some people like to augment their testicles with firearms.  While they are certainly welcome to do so, that doesn't mean that guns are as important as some people think they are.

Darur wrote: Right, but until the slogan's point has been dissproven it still applies, true?

Nope.  These slogans haven't met their prima facie case.  They are nonsense until somebody provides some evidence of legitimacy.

Example:  "If you can read this, you aren't the President"

Does that make you feel like you have to now prove that Bush can read?  Of course not - it's a stupid slogan.

Same thing goes for most everything the NRA is responsible for.

First - Bizzarrely unlikely.  Do you also walk around with a lightning rod strapped to your back, just in case lightning strikes? 

Second - There are non-gun preventative measures.  Phones in the bathroom (so that after you yell out, your wife can call the cops locked in the bathroom), alarm systems, non-gun weaponry, reinforced doors, etc.

Third - Even if you had a gun:  Are you sitting downstairs, awake, gun in hand, keeping watch all night while your family is sleeping?  That gun does you no good unless it is in your hand, and you are awake and alert to fire it.  And even then you still might end up chop suey.

The whole "must defend family from home invaders" generally creates the false idea that you are (a) helpless without a gun, and (b) invincible with a gun.  Neither are true.  In some cases, I would suggest that a gun is even a hindrance rather than an aid.

As I said above, if you want to enhance your testicles with firearms, be my guest.  If you actually want to improve your safety situation, a more comprehensive and rational approach should be taken.

I should clarify further.

Are there situations where a gun is the appropriate safety tool?  Clearly.

If I lived in the boonies, I would certainly have numerous firearms handy.  No doubt.  But most people don't live in the boonies. 

And even so, most people vastly overestimate the effectiveness of guns for home protection.  You keep your shotgun by the bed - would you keep the loaded gun there if you had a 6-year-old wandering around at night?  Most people with small children keep their guns at least tucked away, which reduces their effectiveness.

Most people are sleeping at night, which further reduces the effectiveness of the gun.  Most people are under covers, in the dark, and generally not alert, all of which reduces the effectiveness of the gun.

I am in no way saying that guns are useless for home defense, or even that there aren't times when they are the best solution.

What I AM saying is that many people vastly overestimate their utility, as aptly demonstrated by the example earlier in this thread about not intervening in a potential abduction because "I didn't have my gun".

Most people have a very unrealistic picture of how something like this would actually go down, and are living in some John Wayne fantasy.  That is my point.

And as to weapons, there are other choices than guns.  While firearms are clearly the most effective weapon available to most folks, it is TOO effective, to the point where it has to be locked up, and may cause collateral damage, which reduces their utility.  A good knife, for instance, is not nearly the weapon that a gun is, but a knife is more likely to be handy than a gun, and a knife in hand is better than a gun in rack.  A knife is also less likely to accidentally kill the guy in the guest room, so you can use it without worrying about backstop issues.  I always have a knife in a pocket - do you carry a gun all day in your house?

I am not advocating that knives are "better" than guns - I am simply suggesting that "it ain't that simple".

Clearly, yes - in a deathmatch with an intruder I would love to have a gun.  But home invasions aren't like that - they don't call ahead.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: WGP guy wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: WGP guy wrote: Badsmitty wrote: Why have guns?  To rise up when your gubment takes away rights?  Oh wait, we already have the Patriot Act, mandatory random drug testing in the workplace and are holding "terrorists" without any legal representation.  At least clay pigeons are being kept in check. Well, guns are fun to shoot.  I don't really know what you were implying there if anything, but I don't hunt, I just find joy in going to the shooting range and shooting targets.  Its just fun. Ok. Crack is fun to smoke. Why isnt it ok? Because...its bad for you?  I don't know.  Most people that have guns don't use them in ways that harm others.  Crack harms you.  So you can't really compare that.  Crack is always going to harm you, guns used in the right way won't hurt anyone. They both have the potential to kill you. Even if it isnt on purpose, a bullet in the head is bad for your health. What about pot? Pot dosent always harm people, should we make that OK?

That is the most pointless argument. If we outlaw everything that could hurt you if misused, then forks, lawn mowers, paintball markers, books, spoons, sticks, rocks, paper, metal objects, cars, letter openers, glass, computers, hands, feet, food, beer, gasoline, doors, shoes, shoe laces, magic markers, coins, trees, fences, crayons, firecrackers, and everything else I forgot would need to be outlawed to keep us safe.

BTW, I think both Zesty and Clark Kent have valid points. Hunting, sport shooting, target competitions, all of these are situations in which firearms are needed. Also, a gun usually provides a great deterrent and helps prevent crimes. I think that firearms are a useful tool. No amount of laws will prevent gun crime. Just take a look at Australia. They have really benefitted from banning firearms. I do think that laws are necessary though. There is no reason for anyone to have a fully automatic weapon in their personal collection. Laws should be strictly enforced with NO leeway. 

UHF

Gotta do better than that...   :)

OK     Most of the anti gun arguments are from people that have never shot a gun or been in a situation when you needed one. I carry a .22 pistol in my truck and under my matress when im not in the truck. The gun is unloaded,magizine is not in, and the action is open. That gun has never been pointed at anybody and probably never will but it makes my mom feel safer and I. I dont live in the "boonies" (well kinda) but I do live where ALOT of break ins and robberies happen. If somebody is stealing inside my house they certianly will get a leg full of lead. I dont want to kill anybody. I wont kill any one unless my life or the life of a loved one is certianly at risk. I shoot guns every saturday for fun and hunt with guns. I also hunt bows.

If they outlaw guns only outlaws will have them. I personaly dont care if they do outlaw them. I always have and always will own multiple firearms.

tippmannboy2 wrote: OK     Most of the anti gun arguments are from people that have never shot a gun or been in a situation when you needed one. I carry a .22 pistol in my truck and under my matress when im not in the truck. The gun is unloaded,magizine is not in, and the action is open. That gun has never been pointed at anybody and probably never will but it makes my mom feel safer and I. I dont live in the "boonies" (well kinda) but I do live where ALOT of break ins and robberies happen. If somebody is stealing inside my house they certianly will get a leg full of lead. I dont want to kill anybody. I wont kill any one unless my life or the life of a loved one is certianly at risk. I shoot guns every saturday for fun and hunt with guns. I also hunt bows. If they outlaw guns only outlaws will have them. I personaly dont care if they do outlaw them. I always have and always will own multiple firearms.

Just the same old rhetoric of "we must protect ourselves." Being an officer and someone who uses guns daily, I don't like the thought of just anyone having a gun with them, and we do not have tight enough legislation currently that makes me feel safer.

Bunkered wrote: Hrm. I was thinking Happy Gilmore (his old boss's t-shirt), but whatever. They probably stole it from the one you named.

I forgot about that t-shirt...  another great movie.

In UHF there was a mini-commercial with grumpy old guy telling the camera this fine slogan...

Dune wrote: tippmannboy2 wrote: OK     Most of the anti gun arguments are from people that have never shot a gun or been in a situation when you needed one. I carry a .22 pistol in my truck and under my matress when im not in the truck. The gun is unloaded,magizine is not in, and the action is open. That gun has never been pointed at anybody and probably never will but it makes my mom feel safer and I. I dont live in the "boonies" (well kinda) but I do live where ALOT of break ins and robberies happen. If somebody is stealing inside my house they certianly will get a leg full of lead. I dont want to kill anybody. I wont kill any one unless my life or the life of a loved one is certianly at risk. I shoot guns every saturday for fun and hunt with guns. I also hunt bows. If they outlaw guns only outlaws will have them. I personaly dont care if they do outlaw them. I always have and always will own multiple firearms. Just the same old rhetoric of "we must protect ourselves." Being an officer and someone who uses guns daily, I don't like the thought of just anyone having a gun with them, and we do not have tight enough legislation currently that makes me feel safer.

I do think that if you must have a hunter saftey course before you buy a firearm.    (not just for hunting, Its about to carry and safely use your firearm)

tippmannboy2 wrote: OK     Most of the anti gun arguments are from people that have never shot a gun or been in a situation when you needed one.

Which anti-gun arguments are these, and who are these people making them?

I like guns, and favor personal ownership.  I just want a rational discussion.

The guy on the forum who is most outspoken in favor of more gun control is Dune, and he is a police officer.  I'll presume he has fired a gun or two.

I carry a .22 pistol in my truck and under my matress when im not in the truck. The gun is unloaded,magizine is not in, and the action is open. That gun has never been pointed at anybody and probably never will but it makes my mom feel safer and I.

And "feel" safer is the operative term.  Do you expect to get a 20-minute warning before a break-in, so that you can wake up, put on your PJ's, turn on the light, dig under the mattress for the gun (where did I put the $%$^%$##$!! ammo), and load it?

The number of situations where that gun would actually help you is so miniscule that you are better off buying that personal lightning rod I mentioned earlier.

I understand feeling safer.  But feeling safer is very different from actually being safer.

If somebody is stealing inside my house they certianly will get a leg full of lead. I dont want to kill anybody.

So your plan, after you have loaded your gun (with your intruder patiently waiting), is to delicately shoot the intruder in the leg?

Sorry, dude, but your plan bears no resemblance to reality.

If they outlaw guns only outlaws will have them. I personaly dont care if they do outlaw them. I always have and always will own multiple firearms.

Think about this quote for a minute...  what does that say about you?

WGP guy wrote: Clark Kent wrote: not intervening in a potential abduction because "I didn't have my gun". Uh, about that.  My dad was about to but they drove away.  It kind of looked like they were playing, and no one really took much notice.  We didn't see it till they were about to leave.

So basically this had absolutely nothing to do with guns at all.

gg

The right to bear arms is not about hunting.

It is not about protecting yourself and your family.

It is not about being able to say "Hey Bubba, check out what I just got."

It 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. 

The bill of rights were written because those were specific rights that were being infringed upon by the British Government.  The right to keep and bear arms is the "teeth" of the bill of rights.  The framers of the constitution reasoned that is easier to defend your right to free speech, or a free press if you have the means to do so. 

What does this mean in today's world?  If George W. declared himself King George III and refused to allow further elections does it mean that an armed militia would rise and defeat the forces backing him. No it doesn't.

• Hopefully a significant portion of the military would choose to follow their oath to "support and defend the constitution of the United States" as opposed to backing an illegal power grab by a duly elected politician.
• What military support he had would still be better equipped than any citizens defending their rights, but how willing they would be to slaughter their own citizens in another question.  Keep in mind armed citizens are much easier to slaughter than subjugate. 
• Furthermore, a widespread rebellion would easily outnumber the military forces that could be mustered to suppress it.  (It would be like playing "Whack-a-Mole" with one hammer and 100 mole holes.)
• A common argument for changing the constitution to support stricter gun control is that we now have a government we can trust and certain portions of the bill of rights are no longer relevant.  The "liberal" gun control crowd would like to see the second amendment changed/reinterpreted, but their are also "conservative" attacks on freedom of the press and protection from search and seizure.
  • Anyone who follows the news should be concerned about some of the current debates regarding the Patriot Act.  The potential for the abuse of some of it's existing provisions is scary and is the best argument I can think of for not tampering with the constitution.

Now a couple of quotes just for Clark Kent because I know how much he appreciates them.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither."
- Ben Franklin

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
- Edmund Burke

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.

Zesty, I generally agree, but you will find that the specific rules vary from place to place.  In most of the country, no gun safety class is required for any firearm or hunting license, other than CC licenses, which kind of frightens me.  I figure if you need to learn how to drive before getting in a car, you should learn how to shoot before getting a gun.

Which restrictions in particular do you consider "too many"?  Which ones do you want to do away with?

WGP guy wrote: Clark Kent wrote: not intervening in a potential abduction because "I didn't have my gun". Uh, about that.  My dad was about to but they drove away.  It kind of looked like they were playing, and no one really took much notice.  We didn't see it till they were about to leave.

So if you would have had a gun you would have charged across the street as the public serving superman you are, loaded and ready, even though it looked like they were joking?

Clark Kent wrote: You really should shoot it, andy...   You don't really "know how to use it" until you've shot it, and shot it a lot.

But Clark, what if a group of a dozen ex-KGB commandos bust in my house at midnight, all armed with crowbars and 3 hours high on crystal-meth?? What then hunh??

I will whip out my shotgun I keep loaded at all times within reach and take them out SEAL style as they enter my house, thats what.

Now quiet you dirty ammendment hating lefty.