Gun Control

[i'va biggen]

You can argue this shit till dark the bottom line there is there is no answer.

[bp6570]

Originally Posted by kuhoplite

This gets parroted a lot, and it's a galactically stupid argument. If it's no different, buy a bat. We have progressed from prehistoric clubs (your bat) to modern carbines because modern weapons have far more firepower, better range, and (most importantly) require far less skill and training to wield w/ deadly force.

Actually, its "galactically stupid" to assume that a modern ar-15 or any other modern firearm requires less training to operate than other weapons. Any one with experience with these weapons will tell you that & to state this demostrates your naivete.

Secondly, you, KUhoplite, revel in insulting others points of view in this forum when using terms like "galactically stupid". Does this method feed your desire to be morally & intellectually superior to the rest of us because this seems to be a common theme of any post you make here.

[swarmyone]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You can argue this shit till dark the bottom line there is there is no answer.

Actually there is a pretty simple answer. Leave me and my guns alone. Stop trying to legislate my life.

[i'va biggen]

Opinions are like assholes.

[Bartman1963]

Here is an idea and a serious one. A gun license. Concealed carry...you have a license. You have to get it renewed. Why not a license? You can't have a license if you have been declared insane. You can't have a license if you are a felon, and haven't gotten your rights back. Other rules would apply as well. You would have to carry insurance. State decides its own minimum.
Certainly it would make it less easy to own a firearm...but not any more difficult than earning the right to drive on public streets.
People who get caught without a license and having a gun...directly to jail, handle it just like DUI, get them in court, due process and then if needed, lose the gun.
Guns in drug houses...guns in gang houses...hello swat.
Gun for me and you? Go get a license then go to the bullet hole show it and get it. no more waiting.

Or....on a humorous note. I can steal from Chris Rock. "We don't have a gun control problem...we have a bullet control problem. Make every bullet cost $5000. Then if I care enough to make somebody dead...it's gonna be expensive."

You know if I hate someone enough to spend $25K to pop their ass five times...I am gonna be close enough there will be no innocent bystanders hurt.

The last one was a joke, but I think the first one has merit, and with the right intent, and the right language would be helpful.

[bartipero]

I don't. Some of you are seriously trying to convince others that there should be gun control and the Founding Fathers didn't intend that we have things like assault weapons. Seriously, you think a group of people who began our country by armed insurrection against what then was one of the most powerful countries in the world--the equivalent then of the U.S. today--against their own king and relatives, would have any qualms about retaining the effort to level the playing field by allowing these kinds of weapons had they the issue? Do you really believe the same group of some of the most educated, intelligent and articulate men of all time would think it important to limit these rights? They thought their--our--Constitution so deficient that they needed a Bill of Rights to guarantee these things and this very debate tells us why.

To those who would say "they weren't presented with such individual firepower" I would say you're looking at it incorrectly. They preserved individual ownership of the means of war. The ability for massed fire--the technology of repetitive firepower of the day--was not just preserved, but guaranteed. You could even legally get cannon. An early Vice President, Aaron Burr, even worked to raise an army. No? Oh, then how did then former Congressman from Tennessee, Davy Crokett, help arm the Alamo? And I guess the opening volley at Ft. Sumpter was some guy accidentally lighting his cigar. No, they didn't have repeating arms until the Civil War, but they didn't ban them afterward despite just losing about 800,000 of our countrymen, either.

To those who would speak of larger weaponry, like a-bombs, I would merely point out that the idea was partly for preserving rote defensive abilities and personal freedoms, not retaining an ongoing adversarial relationship with the government, though unseating a bad one wasn't out if the question.

There is no need for an answer. It was given to us with the ratification of the Bill of Rights and common sense rather than someone's opinion. Tragedy will happen en masse in any society by many means. There is more carnage each year in ag accidents and on our highways then in all of these events, and driving and our roads as well as the design and manufacture if ag equipment is greatly regulated. Take a look at the stats on the CDC's web site on the cause of death in this country and you will find poisoning number one--another regulated area, and not just passively. Guns are very far down the line. Add to this several independent studies of cities and countries with gun bans and you will find gun control is a safety myth. It eventually comes down to, "Well if we can just stop one event, murder, accident, blah, blah, blah." Good luck with that. In the mean time crime goes up and your ability for national defense goes down.

Then there is the group that would say we don't need those guns to protect ourselves. Let's leave aside well demonstrated crime deterrence and protection for the moment, but consider the broader picture. At it's simplest, why should I have fewer rights than the Taliban, or any other third worlder or militia? Bin Laden could have guns, but you think I shouldn't.

"Well, who would invade us, there is no one capable of that, so no individual need." That is naive at best. Today, maybe, but what about 20 years from now, and after being disarmed. In pre-WWII Europe the same was thought of Germany. It had been thoroughly disarmed and subjugated by the Treaty of Versailles ending WWI. Within 20 years its neighbors we're fully occupied and we know the rest.

Japan, starved for oil and natural resources due to sanctions for their expansionist behavior did what? Unwilling to accept U.S. terms, they developed a shallow water torpedo, some of the fastest aircraft of the time, and launched an attack on us that no one thought possible with the idea of a quick war and successful suit for peace to reach their goals. They considered firearms ownership, among other things, in the U.S. in not pressing invasion.

There is no parallel today, you say? Guess again. In 1920 no one, not even us, had an aircraft carrier. It was scoffed at until Jimmy Dolittle showed ship based air operations possible in the 20's. The capability wasn't there. Yet, 21 years later Pearl Harbor lay in ruin and the U.S. with its jugular exposed despite our own fleet of carriers.

I submit that China is today similarly situated though their attitude different--maybe. They are similarly starved for natural resources, particularly energy since they have no real oil and gas production domestically. And they just launched their first aircraft carrier and are currently testing a carrier based fighter believed to be the equivalent of our own technology or potentially one day exceed it if we don't keep up. Sound familiar? There are a billion of them, they have a different take on the value of human life, and a demonstrated 'ends justify the means' mentality. And they haven't dropped the idea of hegemony as a political ideal--just ask Taiwan, North Korea and Japan. Those who forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them in the future.

So there is a world argument for being armed, even with assault weapons. Libya, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, the Taliban, the southern border and on and on tell us this as does our own history. Peace and personal freedom come at a cost--a great one. We hope it isn't any one or several of us, but we know it can be. Some of this cost is personal, some national, but it doesn't include giving up or removing freedom even in the face if senselessness. If it does, there is no longer a reason to be us. I can't make you safe. That is your responsibility and focusing on an inanimate object to cure a societal ill won't cure the problem, either.

[lacrew_2000]

Question about a gun license?

Will we also require a First Ammendment license?

After all, the founding fathers could not foresee the internet. Surely they would want to control the modern blogger, no? He's not trained like an educated journalist...and doesn't even have an editor to keep him straight. Why not follow China's lead and 'license' all these modern forms of speech.

[deacon]

gun license lmao/ wtf would that stop? i heard that people get picked up all the time driving without a license and hunting and fishing without a license..you think criminals give a rats ass about laws and license?

[lacrew_2000]

A few weeks ago in Topeka, two police officers were murdered...by a guy with an AR15. Eighteen months prior this guy had been arrested for possessiom of two pistols (ex-felon)...and possession of a sawed off shotgun. He was given probation.

The prisons aren't big enough to enforce the laws we have....and new laws will only affect law abiding gun owners.

[deacon]

well if they execute him like they should he wont be taking up any space in prison

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by deacon

gun license lmao/ wtf would that stop? i heard that people get picked up all the time driving without a license and hunting and fishing without a license..you think criminals give a rats ass about laws and license?

You might scoff at the idea but I believe it has some merrit. Although I see one that is a little different than Bartmans who requires a license for every weapon unless I am not understanding your position, But a gun license which requires that each individual passes a mental evaluation before receiving one I think bypasses the "dr/patient" cant give mental history to the police for back ground checks by shit. The license would be good for 10 year before having to be renewed. The get the license as i said you need a mental evaulation, the same kind given to prospective police and military recruits and a gun training course, which if you have your CCW you have aready attended. There has got to be a way that we as responsible gun owners can weed out mentally disturbed people from purchasing weapons. This may not be a cure all, but it does put the light on the right area to correct the problem and that is the mental health of gun purchasers and owners and not the banning of weapons which will do nothing to stop tragic actions being taken on the innocent. I also think that private sales need to be regulated, if you want to sell your weapon you and the purchaser go to the nearby gun store and do a sale transfer which insures that the person getting your gun should have one because there has been a back ground check. I also think that there needs to be better enforcement of the 1000 gun laws on the books. I am the last person that wants to see gun banned, nor do I think you should have to jump through a million hoops to get one if your a law biding citizen, but I think we can find some common ground and do the smart and right things not just the easy and politically advantages things.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

A few weeks ago in Topeka, two police officers were murdered...by a guy with an AR15. Eighteen months prior this guy had been arrested for possessiom of two pistols (ex-felon)...and possession of a sawed off shotgun. He was given probation.

The prisons aren't big enough to enforce the laws we have....and new laws will only affect law abiding gun owners.

Okay but where did he get the AR15, in most cases through a straw purchaser or a second hand private sale. If someone did straw purchase the weapon they should go to prison for a long time. I would be willing to bet he got probation because he snitched someone out otherwise I find it very difficult to believe that he got probation for felon in possession charges which ave 36 months incarseration.

[lacrew_2000]

Deacon....the guy is dead now, so no need to execute.

Dirty dog....the investigation continues, so we don't know where he got the weapon. My bet would be the gun show. I support gun rights; but, I have never understood the gun show loophole...and I would be 'ok' with closing it.

Your take on his being a snitch is interesting. There have been too many cases of snitches gone bad in the Topeka area. I swear the prosecutor's zeal to make cases with an informant actually DRIVES crime....and some very bad actors get a slap on the wrist. If that is the case here, the police got burned very badly.

I assume the shotgun is a federal crime? So a federal prosecutor may have made a bad deal, paid for in blood by Topeka PD?

I don't like licensing btw.....look no further than the NY paper that posted a map of registered owners for my reason why.

[kuhoplite]

Originally Posted by bp6570

Actually, its "galactically stupid" to assume that a modern ar-15 or any other modern firearm requires less training to operate than other weapons. Any one with experience with these weapons will tell you that & to state this demostrates your naivete.

Secondly, you, KUhoplite, revel in insulting others points of view in this forum when using terms like "galactically stupid". Does this method feed your desire to be morally & intellectually superior to the rest of us because this seems to be a common theme of any post you make here.

Quite arrogant to assume you can understand the psychology behind my words on a message board, but whatever. Continue if you'd like. You were insulted. I get it. I was insulted by his argument, hence the "galactically stupid".

Your argument is equally bad since it flies in the face of the history of warfare, e.g. crossbow vs longbow w/ regard to training or arquebus vs your AR-15.

[yogi692]

I have just scanned this thread and it is rather interesting to me the different point of views....the simple truth is that people that want to do harm to others are going to find a way to do what they intend to do. you can not stop them. If not a gun, a bat,a knife, a rock, where does it end and what do we all give up in the end? Take away the guns today...what tomorrow?

Just look at what they have been able to do with cigarettes? (and I am not comparing the two just wanting people to look at how easy it is to ban something because some dont like it or find it "healthy" )