Gun Regulation. - Page 3

FreedomLover · 06-29-2007, 05:51 PM

I suppose I cannot understand anyone who advocates placing further restrictions on law abiding citzens because of the unwillingness of the criminal element that care nothing for themselves or others by not abiding by the rule of law.

The latest figures I can find for my county are for the year 2005.

Death by firearm.

1. Ruled a suicide.The 87 year old gentleman had a very insidious and terminal case of cancer.

Automobile deaths.

12. 3 of these were people on cellphones 4 were drunk drivers and the remaining were excessive speed/undue care.

Alcohol related deaths.

104 total. This is only the figure where alcohol is the major contributing factor to the death.Of these 104 deaths 89 involved some kind of criminal activity.

Drug related deaths. 23 No breakdown figures could be found.

If the anti gun crowd cared so much that they wish to stop firearms deaths because of a very small minority of criminals who abuse them,then why are they not in an uproar about the number one killers in American society DRUGS and ALCOHOL?

I truly hold the belief that the second ammendment is the last impedement to what is really on the Liberal/left agenda.

hevusa · 06-30-2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreedomLover

Hev,
I presume you meant that you would rather be struck down Unarmed rather than own a gun.Thats all well and good and if you are willing to go so far as to let someone harm/murder/maime you for standing up for what you believe in then indeed to me that is very commendable.

Whilst I consider myself to be a peaceful person I have to live in reality.
That reality is that there are people out there who because of their own selfishness and greed and laziness are ready and willing to visit violence upon myself and family to get whatever they want.

I have heard some say that a gun owner has no right to be judge jury and executioner.When someone is breaking into my home or trying to carjack me or is so hopped up on meth they are totally out of control I can only say one thing.

I do have that right to be judge jury and executioner. Why should I as a law abiding allow some whacked out drug crazed moron put my family or myself at risk? They have no right to do so whilst I have every right to respond with force to stop them.

One of the first things any decent CCW class will tell you is not to reach for your weapon immediatley.Evaluate the threat try and retreat try not to elevate the situation in any way.If after these and other things do not work or are not happening then and only then should you draw your weapon.

The only time a weapon should be drawn is if you are in immediate fear of your life or the life/lives of those you are protecting.

Is my life the life of my child and wife worth more than a criminal who wishes to harm us? Yes without a doubt.

My carry piece is not the primary weapon I carry.My primary weapon is my brain and sense of good judgement.

To deny anyone the right to defend themselves their family or property is nothing more than criminal insanity itself.

Will there ever be peace such as you desire in any of your posts? I do not think so.It would be nice but there will always be those out there that do not wish it because they are not willing to work for it.

It is funny... because the people in places that are the most violent, ie large cities and their suburbs, want the strictist gun control possible.
While the folks who live in relatively safe, lower populated areas, such as say Iowa, can't understand what their desire to needlessly own a shiny gun does for their fellow citizens.

What a wonderful world.....

nuttyjoe · 07-01-2007, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aMFliberal

The Patriot Act is good and necessary, even if it infringes on our privacy rights somewhat.
You can't have my gun! It says right in the 2nd Amendment that I can have it!
Abortions are wrong because every life is sacred, except those convicted of capital crimes.

Hypocrisy shows it's ugly face in many places...

I have always agreed that while the 2nd Amendment guarantees us this right; there is no logical reason for anybody besides the military to be in possesion of a machine gun (any rapid fire waepon to be more specific). I would support regulation in this area.
The framers of our Constitution could not have had any clue about these weapons when thinking of the 2nd Amendment. That technology was almost light-years ahead of their thinking.
It is no wonder why the 2nd Amendment, abortion, and capital punishment have practically turned into litmus tests for any appointments to the Supreme Court.
Will everybody ever agree totally on these subjects? Never. We can just follow the law wherever we may live.

FreedomLover · 07-01-2007, 01:10 PM

With less than 11% of Americans favoring gun control I fail to see unless all of these 11% live in inner cities(wich I doubt) where you even make a valid point.

Even if all 11% did live in an inner city it is still a very small percentage of our population.

Hev you wrote the following.

While the folks who live in relatively safe, lower populated areas, such as say Iowa, can't understand what their desire to needlessly own a shiny gun does for their fellow citizens.

Now I wont even begin to point out all the flaws in that logic it would take far too long.Except to say that My right and the rights of my fellow citizens to own a Firearm does indeed benefit society. In the 4 years I have been here I have heard of 2 burglaries.Violent crime is virtually non existent.

A criminal here knows if they commit a crime against a person they more than likely will end up facing an armed person.

Wouldnt you agree that when you support Feel Good Knee Jerk legislation on Gun Control you are doing nothing more than pandering to the criminal element?

FreedomLover · 07-01-2007, 01:20 PM

Does one ever think the Founding fathers could ever imagine TV or Radio or the many other communications options we have today? Of course not.

Full auto weapons are available in many states but are so highly regulated and so cost prohibitive that very few have them.We only have the GCA of 1968 to thank for that a most useless piece of legislation that was virtually copied from a Nazi party declaration in the late 30s.

With members of the military being polled with such questions as are contained in 'Combat Information Surveys' and other ludicrous such surveys why should the citizens of this country not have access to the same weaponry as the military?

hevusa · 07-01-2007, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreedomLover

With less than 11% of Americans favoring gun control I fail to see unless all of these 11% live in inner cities(wich I doubt) where you even make a valid point.

Do you have a source for your 11% stat? Because I would love to hear where you pulled that one out of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreedomLover

Except to say that My right and the rights of my fellow citizens to own a Firearm does indeed benefit society.

There are MORE guns in inner cities. Your safety has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you like to own archaic human killing devices.

But I digress... as the movie "Bowling for Columbine" clearly pointed out it isn't the fact that we own guns that is the major problem in America. Canadians own a heck of a lot of guns too but don't have a 10th of the gun related violence. But they also protect and help their people with social benefits (health care, etc.).

The problem in America is our capitalist "every man for yourself" attitude inherently creates a desperate class of people. Add a vast array of weaponry into that equation... and well, you get this lovely environment where people take each other out at school, at work, at home... or just themselves, alone at home.

God bless America. God bless the NRA.

Here are some REAL stats for you though (with a link):

Percentage of Americans who feel that "the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict": 62 (Source: BJS Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, pg. 191)

Total cost of firearm assault injury and death in 1992: $63.4 billion

frontline: hot guns: Gun Stats & Facts | PBS

AlicornsPrayer · 07-01-2007, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreedomLover

Does one ever think the Founding fathers could ever imagine TV or Radio or the many other communications options we have today? Of course not.

Full auto weapons are available in many states but are so highly regulated and so cost prohibitive that very few have them.We only have the GCA of 1968 to thank for that a most useless piece of legislation that was virtually copied from a Nazi party declaration in the late 30s.

With members of the military being polled with such questions as are contained in 'Combat Information Surveys' and other ludicrous such surveys why should the citizens of this country not have access to the same weaponry as the military?

Although I agree with you on many of the points you've made, I'll have to disagree with you on part of this.

There is no useful reason why ordinary citizens should own or have access to military weapons. It's just ludicrous to say that they should have access to such weaponry in the first place in my opinion.

The only problem I see in regards to gun control is the fact that crimes that are committed using guns, the guns being used are purchased illegally. Gun control may monitor legally accessed guns, but it doesn't deter those criminal elements that are gaining access to weapons illegally.

Yes, sadly those same weapons used by the criminals aren't available to your law-abiding citizen...But at the same time, just because the criminal has them, doesn't mean that a citizen should arm up in the same manner as the criminal. Doing so wouldn't deter criminals, it would just guarentee that more innocents could be harmed in the cross-fire. And in all reality, all the criminal would do is up the ante with even more deadly fire-power irregardlessly.

akuma · 07-01-2007, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreedomLover

Does one ever think the Founding fathers could ever imagine TV or Radio or the many other communications options we have today? Of course not.

Full auto weapons are available in many states but are so highly regulated and so cost prohibitive that very few have them.We only have the GCA of 1968 to thank for that a most useless piece of legislation that was virtually copied from a Nazi party declaration in the late 30s.

With members of the military being polled with such questions as are contained in 'Combat Information Surveys' and other ludicrous such surveys why should the citizens of this country not have access to the same weaponry as the military?

If you cannot defend your life and property with a simple revolver, what use is having an MP7?

mytmouse57 · 07-02-2007, 12:40 PM

I agree.Where do you draw the line? If I'm allowed to have a selective-fire M-16... well then why not a .50 Browning Machine Gun? And if I can have a .50 BMG.. then why not let me have a howitzer. And if I can have that, why not -- if I can afford it -- just let me go ahead and have a fully-operational M1 tank?

I think it was smart to more-or-less prohibit citizens from having selective-fire and fully-automatic weapons. I think that's a good place to draw the line.

Still, that does not preclude us from having some military arms. I would give my eye teeth to own an M1 Garand -- which not so long ago was the cutting edge of military rifle technology. And since it's only semi-automatic, it's perfectly legal for me to own.

PoliticalWardog · 07-02-2007, 03:13 PM

FL I agree with you totally. My maturity tells me that Guns don't
make a man, but common sense tells me that I have rights to
protect myself, and by knowing them two things I am okay with
them.

There's no way that I would going down without fighting back.
I survived three years in Viet Nam, and there's NO WAY I just
stand there if I knew that my life was in danger. Its in our 2nd
admendment...the rights to bare arms.

My 38 and my 9mm is both registered with the Michigan State
Police, and the permit allow me to carry my sidearm under my
shirt,coat, sweater, under my car seat, and in my automobile's
glove compartment.

My philosophy is ..... Its better them then me. Criminals do not
have ground rules to go back, and carrying a weapon on my side
makes me feel secured where ever I go.

So to thoses of you who don't believe in having a weapon that's
on you. However don't tell nobody what they can do or can't do,
but cover your own ass when it comes to being victimized, and
busting a cap in someone's behind is a freedom of choice.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode