Gun Control

[raggage]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the topic of gun control. Particularly on a federal ban or constitutional ban on all assualt style weapons (private use) and a mandatory gun safety course for all gun owners, as well as mandatory gun locks. I know this is a contentious issue, and i know many of these measures could be in contradiction to the constitution, but what are your thoughts?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

A federal or state ban on all private gun ownership would be unconstitutional.

But mandatory gun locks wouldn't be unconstitutional.

[M]

Wrong. The second amendment is about instant militias and is irrelevant today. There are no legitimate reasons for priavte persons to have guns. The only three I kcan think of are:

1.) Hunting. Going out and living your fantasy of Tarzan or Squanto by killing deer with laser guided assault weaponry. Ooh, how sportsmanlike in touch with nature!

2.) Engaging in crime or other violence.

3.) Defense against category 2.

In short, it is a very good idea to ban all personal firearms for the benefit and security of all. However, firearms and munitions should and must be readily available to security and military forces.

This is one of my "lefty" issues, and one of the most passionate of my positions that do not fit within my party.

[CARLHAYDEN]

At last I've found something you have posted with which I can agree.

[raggage]

A federal or state ban on all private gun ownership would be unconstitutional.

But mandatory gun locks wouldn't be unconstitutional.

Is that true if any one type of gun was banned, eg shotguns?

[Josh/Devilman88]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the topic of gun control. Particularly on a federal ban or constitutional ban on all assualt style weapons (private use) and a mandatory gun safety course for all gun owners, as well as mandatory gun locks. I know this is a contentious issue, and i know many of these measures could be in contradiction to the constitution, but what are your thoughts?

I think we should raise the age where you can buy guns to 21. Also have mandatory gun locks. And have a safty course is a good idea too

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Wrong. The second amendment is about instant militias and is irrelevant today. There are no legitimate reasons for priavte persons to have guns.

What's this I hear?

A Republican supporting a ban on guns, now that the Republicans are firmly in power? Even though the Republicans were always whining about their guns getting taken away back when we had a Democrat in the White House.

It just goes to show that Republicans think gun rights are for themselves only.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Is that true if any one type of gun was banned, eg shotguns?

They can ban or limit certain types of guns without violating the Constitution. They can't ban all guns.

[M]

I am not speaking as "a Republican". I am speaking as a human being named Reuben. I was never whining about my guns being taken away. I can't stand the NRA. And I don;t want gun rights for myself, either. I said I wanted them for only "military and security forces". I do not qualify for either.

Learn to think outside the box, bandit.

[raggage]

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the topic of gun control. Particularly on a federal ban or constitutional ban on all assualt style weapons (private use) and a mandatory gun safety course for all gun owners, as well as mandatory gun locks. I know this is a contentious issue, and i know many of these measures could be in contradiction to the constitution, but what are your thoughts?

I think we should raise the age where you can buy guns to 21. Also have mandatory gun locks. And have a safty course is a good idea too

I'm glad to see some sense coming out of a Republican on this issue. One from the Bush heartland as well. Good on you.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I said I wanted them for only "military and security forces".

Now that is scary. Really.

It sounds more like something you'd hear in a dictatorship than in a modern democratic republic.

[M]

Uhh... well that's how they do it in most other world democracies, including the entire European continent. Police and Army have guns. Joe Smith does not.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Most other democracies aren't as established as America is. America had the longest-running democracy in the world.

[ATFFL]

Uhh... well that's how they do it in most other world democracies, including the entire European continent. Police and Army have guns. Joe Smith does not.

Bet the Jews wish they had private gun ownership in the '30s.

The purpose of the second ammendment wa to allow the public to defend themslves from the government/military in case it ever became too dictatorial.   The public currently lacks this ability.  

This needs to be rectified by allowing the ownership of everything required to form a credible fighting force.

Mandatory locks and training hould also be included.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

The purpose of the second ammendment wa to allow the public to defend themslves from the government/military in case it ever became too dictatorial.

It's fair to say that the government has become too dictatorial.

[ATFFL]

The purpose of the second ammendment wa to allow the public to defend themslves from the government/military in case it ever became too dictatorial.

It's fair to say that the government has become too dictatorial.

Then try and rise up in armed rebellion.  You'll fail, miserably, because you won't get many people with you and then you will be locked away to protect the rest of us.

[M]

If a real totalitarian govt comes to power, private gun ownership won't help one bit.

The Jews would largely not have defended themselves until too late. Many Jews eventually did- see Mordechai Anielewicz and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising- for all the good it did them.

And democracies like Britain and France are fairly well established. Certainly they qualify as "modern republics".

[raggage]

Police and Army have guns. Joe Smith does not.

Not quite true, In many of the worlds developed countries Police do not carry guns, instead they have a S.W.A.T like team that is called out. This is true of the U.K, Australia and New Zealand and many others.

[ATFFL]

If a real totalitarian govt comes to power, private gun ownership won't help one bit.

The Jews would largely not have defended themselves until too late. Many Jews eventually did- see Mordechai Anielewicz and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising- for all the good it did them.

And democracies like Britain and France are fairly well established. Certainly they qualify as "modern republics".

They also did not have guns until too late.

Also, the Brownshirts would be a lot less likely to have gone on the Krystalnacht rampage if the Jews could have put up a defense.

[M]

Disagree. Anyway if private gun ownership had been legal and widespread beforehand, the Germans would have confiscated them immediately following the Reichstag fire, possibly as late as the Night of the Long Knives (1934). They'dve been long gone by the war ('39) and the start of the Final Solution ('41).

[opebo]

Disagree. Anyway if private gun ownership had been legal and widespread beforehand, the Germans would have confiscated them immediately following the Reichstag fire, possibly as late as the Night of the Long Knives (1934). They'dve been long gone by the war ('39) and the start of the Final Solution ('41).

Its actually very difficult to confiscate hidden weapons, especially if there is no record of who owns them.  They're very hard to find.  Which is why I'm strongly against any kind of identification or checking of backgrounds of gun buyers.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Disagree. Anyway if private gun ownership had been legal and widespread beforehand, the Germans would have confiscated them immediately following the Reichstag fire, possibly as late as the Night of the Long Knives (1934). They'dve been long gone by the war ('39) and the start of the Final Solution ('41).

M,

I'm more than a little surprised at your postings on this thread.

In you postings on other matter, you have been pretty reasonable.

I can only wonder if you are suffering from a severe case of hoplophobia.

By the way, as a historical matter, the jews DID escape from one concentration camp because they acquired and used small arms.  There is a pretty good movie about it.  Trying to remember the name of the camp (it was in Poland).  I believe it was something like, 'Sobidor.'

You postings on this thread would be agreed with by every totalitarian thug of the twentieth century of whom I am aware.

Do you really think there are enough jackbotted scumbags to try to seize privately owned arms?

I generally disagree with Bandit, but we can peaceably disagree.  If ANY government comes to seize private arms, I suspect I will be with Bandit, forced by evil intollerance to defend myself against tyranny.

[MarkDel]

Wrong. The second amendment is about instant militias and is irrelevant today. There are no legitimate reasons for priavte persons to have guns. The only three I kcan think of are:

1.) Hunting. Going out and living your fantasy of Tarzan or Squanto by killing deer with laser guided assault weaponry. Ooh, how sportsmanlike in touch with nature!

2.) Engaging in crime or other violence.

3.) Defense against category 2.

In short, it is a very good idea to ban all personal firearms for the benefit and security of all. However, firearms and munitions should and must be readily available to security and military forces.

This is one of my "lefty" issues, and one of the most passionate of my positions that do not fit within my party.

WOW...you really, really shocked me with this answer. When the government comes around to take away my guns...well...I wouldn't wanna be the first ATF schmuck to come through my door.

[Nym90]

I think there is a lot of unfounded mass hysteria surrounding the gun issue. No one's guns are going to be taken away. I agree completely, MarkDel, if someone was coming to take my guns away, I'd stand and fight with all the strength I could muster. But there is no way in hell that is going to happen in America. I am highly suspicious of the "domino theory" in general (the idea that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, the "slippery slope", etc.). I think that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things that has no bearing in reality.

I don't see any reason why a gun should be legal if it has no legitimate hunting, sporting, or self-defense purpose. If it does, it should absolutely be legal, but if it doesn't, it shouldn't. People often mention the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but there are a lot of weapons that 99.9% of us would agree aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment...it's perfectly Constiututional to ban nuclear weapons, Sherman tanks, hand grenades, etc. So there is obviously not an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms, since almost everyone would agree that nuclear bombs should not be legal for the average citizen to own. It's just a matter of where you draw the line, there clearly is no absolute right.

[MarkDel]

I think there is a lot of unfounded mass hysteria surrounding the gun issue. No one's guns are going to be taken away. I agree completely, MarkDel, if someone was coming to take my guns away, I'd stand and fight with all the strength I could muster. But there is no way in hell that is going to happen in America. I am highly suspicious of the "domino theory" in general (the idea that if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile, the "slippery slope", etc.). I think that's a pretty simplistic way of looking at things that has no bearing in reality.

I don't see any reason why a gun should be legal if it has no legitimate hunting, sporting, or self-defense purpose. If it does, it should absolutely be legal, but if it doesn't, it shouldn't. People often mention the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms, but there are a lot of weapons that 99.9% of us would agree aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment...it's perfectly Constiututional to ban nuclear weapons, Sherman tanks, hand grenades, etc. So there is obviously not an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms, since almost everyone would agree that nuclear bombs should not be legal for the average citizen to own. It's just a matter of where you draw the line, there clearly is no absolute right.

Nym90,

They came for people's guns in England not all that long ago. And you may feel my overall point is simplistic, but imagine a Democratic President from a major Northeastern City who has strong support in Congress...say Charles Schumer, who is one of the biggest enemies of the 2nd Amendment. If you don't think that the extreme left of the Democratic Party wouldn't OUTLAW all handguns and order their confiscation, then you haven't been listening to them very well over the years. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO GET A GUN PERMIT IN NEW YORK CITY OR WASHINGTON, DC??? You cannot get one at all without showing cause to a local magistrate that you need it specifically because you carry large sums of money, and the vast majority of all permit applications are turned down for unknown reasons. If these people had their way, all handguns would be BANNED...listen to them...take them at their word!