what about the 7th ammendment?

8/12/2006 12:46:09 AM

wheres my twenty bucks, muthafucka?

8/12/2006 2:01:09 AM

well, we have tweaked the gun laws both ways in the past 10 years, but yeah i guess it is fair to say that if i dont feel overly threatened that we're not doing too bad. i also agree that there are other laws/changes that need to be had long before we discuss this issue, but in a thread solely devoted to gun policy we pretty much ignore those types of issues.

8/12/2006 9:11:22 AM

I was about to post something similar to LoneSnark. I was just in the shower, and I was wondering why I'm not crazy for eliminating guns. I mean, I've had some pretty lame justifications for keeping guns around simply because I didn't bother to consider an alternative; guns, pistols, rifles, muskets, revolvers--I've never tried to picture society without them.

Now, as natural and prolific as guns seem to be to me, I've never actually been exposed to gun violence in any significant way, and I'm disappointed in myself for not looking outside my individual experience and addressing the threats that guns pose to the thousands of good, hard-working people who just want to make it through the night without waking up to pistols being discharged outside their window.

(For starters, we've got to figure out a way to stop straw purchases.)

[Edited on August 12, 2006 at 12:28 PM. Reason : sss]

8/12/2006 12:13:50 PM

Quote :

"I was just in the shower, and I was wondering why I'm not crazy for eliminating guns."

this is meaningless without pics.

8/12/2006 1:57:41 PM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: Now, as natural and prolific as guns seem to be to me, I've never actually been exposed to gun violence in any significant way, and I'm disappointed in myself for not looking outside my individual experience and addressing the threats that guns pose to the thousands of good, hard-working people who just want to make it through the night without waking up to pistols being discharged outside their window."

My language is telling. In place of the bold text, I should have written "folks discharging pistols outside their windows," but instead I wrote it as if guns go off on their own.

8/13/2006 4:48:28 AM

bttt

8/17/2006 3:10:02 PM

ttt again for the impending off topic debate about what 2nd amendment rights are

8/18/2006 10:44:51 AM

since apparently no one is trying to take anyones stuff
http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg

mms://a568.v129484.c12948.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/568/12948/v0001/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0908/4946889.300k.wmv

8/18/2006 10:49:54 AM

Why is it that so many people feel they need to find a way to eliminate LEGAL ownership of guns? Everyone would think that someone was crazy for saying we need to find a way to eliminate the free press, or the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Typically the argument is the second ammendment is not being understood as it was intended or is being interpreted to broadly (ie it is intended to allow the military to own guns). These are often the same people that think that the Bill of Rights unquestionably protects ones right to have an abortion at any time at any age without a question being asked. The second ammendment is probably one of the most clearly stated rights we have as Americans, however those rights that are in "the penumbras of the constitution" are often treated as if they are much more clear than this issue. Because some of us want to responsibly and legally own a gun for whatever reason, don't attack our right to do so because you do not agree with it.

And as to the idea that it would be sufficient to own a hunting rifle for home defence, have you ever seen how far a high power rifle round can go even through walls, vehicles, or the bad guy? Allowing people the option to defend their lives and their families lives with a handgun makes it much more likely that only the bad guy will get hurt.

8/19/2006 1:25:32 AM

^ You're right, suprmn1020. And there are actually members of Congress--liberals, of course--who have claimed that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right to bear arms to the National Guard! The National Guard, as we know it, obviously wasn't even around when the Framers wrote the Bill of Rights.

When tyranny shows up pounding down your door, it will be wearing an official badge, I can assure you. And tyrants generally don't want the public armed, which is all the more reason to stay armed. It actually helps to prevent tyranny. I know this will be hard for some to accept, but it's usually true.

An armed populace is also a national defense issue. If you were planning an invasion of a given country and you had intelligence that told you the citizens of said country were heavily armed, wouldn't you give serious consideration to that fact? Wouldn't it be some level of deterrent? The answer is self-evident.

8/19/2006 5:57:53 AM

Quote :

"Authorities say a four year old boy climbed on top of a wardrobe, where he found a .22 caliber revolver. He took the gun into the living room, where he accidentally shot a 20 month old child who was being babysat in the home."

http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=37064&provider=top


GG GUN OWNERS!!! U GUYS RULE

[Edited on August 19, 2006 at 9:24 AM. Reason : 234]

8/19/2006 9:22:32 AM

Now, how many drowned in the past 24 hours?
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=drowning&btnG=Search+News

8/19/2006 9:27:01 AM

we've already been over why the drowning comparison is silly and lord know why hooksaw thinks we are going to be invaded.

8/19/2006 10:12:53 AM

JUST GOT MY HANDGUN PURCHASE PERMIT

WOOOOOOT

8/19/2006 10:50:55 AM

Quote :

"if every one of you had knives itd have been a pretty even fight except perhaps that they outnumbered you. "

Fuck an even fight.

If someone wants to fight me, i wouldn't use a weapon unless he did (or was about to), or unless he was like Dolph Lundgren or something. If someone started stabbing my friends with a sword and cut their eyelids off, and I had access to my .45, then even dental records wouldn't identify their bodies. I'm not into "even"...i'm into killing bad people while preserving the well being of good people, most specifically me.

8/19/2006 11:37:06 AM

the point of the statement was to show that he wasnt helpless without a gun. if he had carried some other sort of weapon, it'd have at minimum been even. do you think that you should be able to carry the ability to obliterate your foe no matter what it is?

8/19/2006 1:39:34 PM

^^ exactly

^ escalation of force laws apply to this, they bring a knife to a fight, you're allowed to bring a gun to the knifefight

and there wasn't shit I could do about it

when I could ahve ended it, along with the lives of some bad people

Quote :

"When tyranny shows up pounding down your door, it will be wearing an official badge, I can assure you. And tyrants generally don't want the public armed, which is all the more reason to stay armed. It actually helps to prevent tyranny. I know this will be hard for some to accept, but it's usually true."

EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING
http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg

mms://a568.v129484.c12948.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/568/12948/v0001/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0908/4946889.300k.wmv

those videos make my blood boil
I can't beleive someone would sign off to allow cops and troops to go house to house in the United States and confiscate peoples weapons and make them leave their homes open to looters

[Edited on August 19, 2006 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2006 3:26:38 PM

Quote :

""Authorities say a four year old boy climbed on top of a wardrobe, where he found a .22 caliber revolver. He took the gun into the living room, where he accidentally shot a 20 month old child who was being babysat in the home." http://www.wbir.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=37064&provider=top GG GUN OWNERS!!! U GUYS RULE"

Having a gun in the home is one thing, but having the gun in the home while there are children is another. This incident is unfortunate, but the parent shouldn't have left his firearm in a spot where the child could reach it (ie keep it locked away in a gun safe or some other secure location). He also shouldn't have left it unsecured (ie the safety should be on and a trigger guard/lock should be on it at all times), and the firearm should be stored away unloaded, with ammunition stored seperately. These measures should be done as a matter of good safety even if there are no children in the house, but when there are children around (especially they're too young to know better) there isn't really any excuse.

I suppose that the only way to ensure that there are never incidents like this in the first place is to not own a gun period. But it can just as easily be said that all automobile accidents could be prevented if only nobody owned cars, and STDs and unwanted pregnancies would never happen if only people practiced abstinence. We as a society allow cars and sex, but we get around the potential dangers with good safety measures. For cars you wear a seat belt and follow all road signs and instructions, and get a license. For sex you wear contraceptives and get to know your partner first, and maybe you both get STD testing done beforehand. None of these measures can fully prevent an accident or injury, but when implemented and combined with common sense they are effective.

It is the same way with owning a firearm; you don't have to have one, but if you do then you implicitly agree to follow a set of rules. There are certain things that you do to minimize danger, such as not pointing the weapon in a direction that you do not intend to shoot, or keeping your finger off the trigger until you're actually ready to fire. You empty the chamber and remove the magazine before cleaning the gun, or when you just put it away. The list goes on. When an accident happens, it is usually because one of these safety measures wasn't observed.

I know that some of you you are going to say that the above analogy is flawed because owning a gun is an unnecessary risk whereas a car and sex are or something along those lines, but my point still stands. Owning a gun is like any other activity; there are risks that are assumed but can be reduced by following good safety procedures.

8/19/2006 3:54:09 PM

it is reasonable (though yes, while reading it i was thinking the exact error you noted), but if your intended purpose is home/family safety, having it locked in a safe with a trigger lock, ammo in a different area, etc seems to defeat the purpose a bit (though id prefer that over the alternative).

8/19/2006 3:59:47 PM

^That was something I had thought about addressing in my post, but decided not to.

Yes, there are some who would argue that such measures increase the preparation time for the weapon, which decreases your odds in a situation where self-defense is needed. Some seek a balance between safety and readiness, such as keeping the gun loaded but not chambered and keeping it locked. If it's just you living by yourself or if you live with other people who know better than to play with guns a more lax approach to gun safety could conceivably be tolerated, but when there are children it becomes a different matter. There is no easy answer however, imo.

8/19/2006 4:05:12 PM

the good thing about requiring or at least suggesting ppl do this is it also reduces the crazy-redneck threat discussed earlier. if someone has to go to that much trouble to get their gun ready, the crime of passion excuse goes out the window rather quick.

8/19/2006 4:09:47 PM

More or less.

Personally I keep my gun loaded but unchambered, with safety and internal lock on. Sometimes I'll keep it unloaded and keep the magazines empty (I worry that keeping them loaded all the time isn't good for the springs), but the former is how I usually do it. I guess that makes me a hypocrite, but I live alone and am not worried about anybody using the gun when I don't want them to. Even if they do get it, the internal lock is still in place and I keep the key on me most of the time.

8/19/2006 4:29:54 PM

Quote :

"Having a gun in the home is one thing, but having the gun in the home while there are children is another."

I agree. At the very least there should be a law against keeping loaded guns in houses with children.

8/19/2006 5:29:54 PM

Quote :

"Now, how many drowned in the past 24 hours? "

lets outlaw water. its not like we need it to survive.

8/19/2006 5:31:10 PM

it will kill you if you live in CARY

8/19/2006 5:40:58 PM

e. coli wont kill you

8/19/2006 5:41:50 PM

Quote :

" if he had carried some other sort of weapon, it'd have at minimum been even. do you think that you should be able to carry the ability to obliterate your foe no matter what it is?"

why exactly do you seem to want things to be even, and not heavily in favor of the good guys?

and yes, i do think you should be able to carry the ability to obliterate your foe. like I said, if someone was stabbing my friends with a sword and cutting their eyelids off, I would shoot and kill them in a second.

Quote :

"I agree. At the very least there should be a law against keeping loaded guns in houses with children. "

I'm pretty sure there IS a law about it being illegal for a gun to be stored in a manner that it is acccessible to a minor (or maybe a younger child...not totally up on the details).
____________________________________


I keep my pistol loaded, but not chambered. I keep both of my rifles unloaded. If I still had a shotgun, I might would keep that loaded, but not chambered.

Keeping it unloaded kind of renders it borderline useless. I figure the odds are low that I'll have time to load it if the time ever comes that I need it.

However, I can chamber a round and cock the hammer quickly enough that I think it's worth trading a couple of seconds for the increased safety of not storing it cocked & locked.

and I keep it either in the trunk of my car, or under my bed (and everyone in my house is proficient with firearms. I think 3 of us own 7 firearms between us).

8/19/2006 7:29:54 PM

as has been established by everyone but me, bad guys cheat. they're always going to have access to more firepower than you somehow. they can get more dangerous weapons for much cheaper and without the hastle. without letting anyone own anything they feel like, there's not much you're going to do about that.

that said, i also already said his case was far from the norm and isnt a good example of the need for self protection. crazies come in all varieties and are taken from both the "good guy" and "bad guy" pools.

8/19/2006 7:43:47 PM

no not really

the weapons I own are better than what 99% of the bad guys carry...
as with most concealed carry citizens in this country



bad folks don't spend money on reliable, quality, accurate weaponry

8/19/2006 8:07:50 PM

from the range and frequency most baddies probably use them it isnt much of an issue. thats just my guess though. come on down to FL and we can all go to the gun range and prove me wrong though.

8/19/2006 8:14:26 PM

We're probably not going to be invaded. That's the point, cyrion.

8/19/2006 8:15:55 PM

thats fine, I love to shoot... I shoot thousands of rounds each year

most armed citizens go to the range... alot... and with good ammo, and equipment, training

8/19/2006 8:16:17 PM

Quote :

"pwrstrkdf250: most armed citizens go to the range... alot...and with good ammo, and equipment, training"

How do you know this?

[Edited on August 19, 2006 at 8:59 PM. Reason : Curious.]

8/19/2006 8:58:05 PM

because I associate with them, work with them, sell things to them, talk to them, and I used to train them


everyday

and I still do some of the above

if anti gun people knew more about them, the people that own them, and the laws that pertain to them... they'd be ahead of the curve

[Edited on August 19, 2006 at 9:05 PM. Reason : ...]

8/19/2006 9:03:53 PM

We don't go to a range, we go to a field! Or behind someone's house.

8/19/2006 9:07:18 PM

Quote :

"We're probably not going to be invaded. That's the point, cyrion."

It has pretty much nothing to do with our armed citizens and everything to do with our military.

8/19/2006 10:05:54 PM

^^^I've never been to a range. The couple times I've shot a rifle have been at the family orchard.

I understand now that the gun owners you know go to the range, use better equipment, etc...

But I was asking how you know that "most armed citizens go to the range... alot... and with good ammo, and equipment, training" Did you mean that most armed citizens you know go to the range and with those things?

[Edited on August 19, 2006 at 10:41 PM. Reason : sss]

8/19/2006 10:41:03 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure there IS a law about it being illegal for a gun to be stored in a manner that it is acccessible to a minor (or maybe a younger child...not totally up on the details)."

For those interested: http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/ncfirearmslaws.pdf

Quote :

"7. STORAGE OF FIREARMS Any person who resides in the same premises as a minor, who owns or possesses a firearm, and stores or leaves that firearm in a condition that the firearm can be discharged and in a manner that the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised minor would be able to gain access to the firearm, is guilty of a misdemeanor if such minor gains access to the firearm without the lawful permission of the minor's parents or a person having charge of the minor, and the minor in turn possesses that weapon unlawfully on any campus or educational property in North Carolina; exhibits the weapon in a public place in a careless, angry, or threatening manner; causes personal injury or death with the weapon 21 not in self defense; or uses the weapon in the commission of a crime. A minor is defined in this law as anyone under the age of 18 who is not emancipated. This law goes on to provide that it shall not prohibit a person from carrying a firearm on his or her body or placed in such close proximity that it can be used as easily and quickly as if carried on the body. This provision of the law should not be interpreted however to modify the previously recited law on carrying concealed weapons in North Carolina. Additionally, this law does not apply if the minor obtained the weapon as a result of an unlawful entry by any person. A written copy of this firearms storage law, found in G.S. § 14-315.1, is required to be delivered by the transferor in any retail commercial sale or transfer of a firearm to the purchaser or transferee of such weapon. All such transferors should take appropriate steps to have a verbatim copy of this law available at the time of any transfer of a weapon."

Once again, any number of laws can be written, but they only serve to punish someone after said law is broken. I am not saying that laws are meaningless and useless, just that a law in and of itself does not prevent an act from occurring. This is where personal responsibility is necessary. It is the responsibility of gun owners (and especially parents of small children) to adequately secure firearms and provide proper firearms safety training.

[Edited on August 19, 2006 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ]

8/19/2006 11:49:46 PM

Quote :

"as has been established by everyone but me, bad guys cheat. they're always going to have access to more firepower than you somehow. they can get more dangerous weapons for much cheaper and without the hastle. without letting anyone own anything they feel like, there's not much you're going to do about that."

The only bad guys who have anything better than what I have (and likely even as good as what I have) are the REALLY bad guys--organized crime, BIG time drug runners, etc--and they are, more or less, no direct threat to me. I'm not a coke dealer, and I don't take favors from the mob.

8/20/2006 1:16:54 AM

Quote :

"...any number of laws can be written, but they only serve to punish someone after said law is broken. I am not saying that laws are meaningless and useless, just that a law in and of itself does not prevent an act from occurring. This is where personal responsibility is necessary. It is the responsibility of gun owners (and especially parents of small children) to adequately secure firearms and provide proper firearms safety training."

Exactly. I could not have put it in better words.

The key term here is personal responsibility. It is what seperates the sane, rational gun owners from the people who have no business even holding a weapon.

8/20/2006 2:52:59 AM

Quote :

"as has been established by everyone but me, bad guys cheat."

so we shouldnt outlaw murder becuase murders will kill people anyway?

8/20/2006 4:35:10 AM

you know i havent made that argument, but when he's comparing arms it is a perfectly legit comment.

Quote :

"The key term here is personal responsibility. It is what seperates the sane, rational gun owners from the people who have no business even holding a weapon."

unfortunately theres no magical personal responsibility test, thus the debate we are having. i dont doubt that plenty of you are rational, well-intentioned gun owners.

8/20/2006 9:51:00 AM

but there are laws that, if it's been proven that you do have issues, prevent you from buying or possessing a firearm

8/20/2006 9:56:27 AM

thumb print scanner locks on firearms would solve both the problem of illegal sales and children finding them

8/20/2006 10:12:53 AM

^Possibly. However, my concerns about such a device revolve around reliability. Suppose the device malfunctions and it won't recognize your print (maybe the reader screen is dirty or scratched up). What if the unit gets broken or damaged? Or what if the battery is dead? That could be really bad in a situation where it might be justified to use the gun. If the goal is to prevent unauthorized users from engaging the gun's function, then no doubt a thumb print scanner succeeds. But if it also blocks you from using the weapon (assuming you are in a situation where you are justified in using it), then it's pointless to even own the weapon.

There are other obvious applications to such technology, ie if you are a suspect and the police want to raid your home they could wirelessly disable the gun so that you cannot use it on them. But I find that level of control to be too uncomfortable to entrust to anyone, including the police and government.

8/20/2006 4:23:33 PM

^ I would bet that you could make a thumb print scanner thats more reliable then the trigger mechanism or bullet. Anyone who has shot a gun would tell you, or I know this from experience too, that those thing have very high rates of failure.

I cant tell you how many times a normal pistol mis-chambers a bullet and it doesnt fire. Its quite anoying.

[Edited on August 20, 2006 at 5:36 PM. Reason : 243 ]

8/20/2006 5:36:27 PM

^bullshit, an electronic thumbprint device, or electronic device at all... will not be more reliable than the mechanical action of a well built firearm with quality ammunition

yeah... shitty guns fail, good guns fail with shitty bullets


good guns with good ammo rarely fail

8/20/2006 6:43:23 PM

yeah, ive made my position clear but im with pwrstrkd on this

8/20/2006 6:51:34 PM

^^ so what is your point? bad guns and bad bullets are still out there, and in use. so your point is 100% invalid unless all guns in america are replaced with new, high quality guns and high quality bullet.

the average homeowner who uses a pistol for protection doesnt spend $700 on a gun. they buy cheap guns. this is REALITY.


[Edited on August 20, 2006 at 6:57 PM. Reason : ';]

8/20/2006 6:55:34 PM