Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 17, 2018, 06:39:28 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderators: Beet, Apocrypha)
| | |-+  Gun Ownership/Rights? (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Gun Ownership/Rights?  (Read 13375 times)
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,642


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« on: May 25, 2004, 10:32:50 pm »

funny how people always forget the first part of the 2nd amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,


 the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "


We have a standing army now, so a 'well regulated militia' is no longer needed.


You seem to have missed the word "FREE."
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,642


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2004, 10:34:43 pm »

I support any gun being legal as long as it has a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose. Otherwise, I don't believe that a weapon should be legally available to the general public if it has no legitimate use other than to kill people. Note that this covers the entire spectrum from Sherman Tanks, nuclear bombs, AK-47s, Uzis, etc....if you believe in an ABSOLUTE right to bear arms I'd think you'd have to say that everything must be legal, up to and including tanks and nuclear bombs. Otherwise you are admitting that it is ok to ban some weapons, but not others...so then where do you draw the line? I say if the gun has no legitimate purpose at all other than to kill people, it shouldn't be legal.

Obviously there is some degree of disagreement as to whether or not a gun has a legitimate hunting or sporting purpose, but for most weapons old fashioned common sense should do the job...would anyone in their right mind use this gun to deer hunt, for example? Obviously a fully automatic machine gun is completely useless for hunting.

Are you suggesting there is NO right to self-defense?
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,642


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2004, 08:29:33 am »

No, ...but any gun that is good for hunting is plenty good for self-defense too, usually. Certainly allowances should be made for guns which are particularly good for defense but not for hunting or sporting...but these should be more difficult to obtain.

Why should firearms used for self-defense be more difficulat to obtain than firearms used for hunting?

Is self-defense less important than hunting?

Also, many firearms used for hunting are less than optimal for self defense.  A Winchester 70n SEM is great for Buffalo, but not too handy to use in most self-defense situations.
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,642


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2004, 09:41:07 pm »

Not less important, but the only guns that are really good for defense but not for hunting are also probably going to be used a lot by criminals too (handguns come to mind here).

If you want a gun to defend your home, a shotgun works quite well, and is much easier than a handgun to shoot accurately. If you need defense on the street, I can see the need for a handgun, but it shouldn't be easy to obtain a handgun because they are obviously going to be used a lot by criminals, probably moreso than in defense.

Basically my position is that we need to look at each gun objectively, and ask what its purpose is. Rather than blanket laws that apply to all guns we would be better off judging each on its own merits.

First, a shotgun is a poor weapon for dealing with an intruder in the home.  Due to the barrel and overall length, it is clumsy to use within a home.

Second, shotguns are by nature not designed to be accurate.  A good handgun can be very accurate within the range for which it is designed to be used.  In fact, it is less likely to result in collateral damage.

Third, statistics are clear, people defend themselves far more often with handguns than criminal use them to committ crimes.

Fourth, if you believe that handguns are designed to be used by criminals you are really nuts.  Probably the best self-defense handgun in general circulation is the 1911A1, which was designed by John Browning for the U.S. military (or are you going to call the military 'criminals?').

Fifth, are you an animst or something?  Firearms do NOT have a life of their own.  Why don't you try punishing those who misuse firearms instead of transferring the blame for individual criminal acts to inanimate objects (tools)?

Six, so far you ignorance and bigotry on the subject have proven to be overwhelming.  Try learning something before posting!
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,642


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2004, 09:43:55 am »

Suggest everyone read Steve Chapkman's new column, "Assault-weapon ban follows a curious logic."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi0405270288may27,0,3497464.column
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,642


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2004, 12:31:14 pm »

Once again you contradict yourself.

Please carefully read what I said.

Due to the "pattern" created by a shotgun it is more likely to result in collateral damages, something either you do not understand, or simply refuse to admit.

Self-defense is a right which does not have to be proved beforehand.  Either you do believe in self-defense, or you don't!  Knock off the contradictory language (i.e. stop acting like Kerry).

Are you of Italian descent?  Why do you want to bring a knife to a gunfight?

Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
CARLHAYDEN
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10,642


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2004, 07:26:12 pm »

I admitted it increases collateral damage. I stated that clearly in my last post. I realize this is a drawback. The closer the range, though, the less the collateral damage would be, as the pattern doesn't have time to spread far apart yet.

A knife is just as effective as a gun at close range, perhaps more so. Now if someone has a gun pointed at you from a distance, yes, you need a gun too...most robbers or other street assailants, however, are going to be right up close to you I'd think, within knife range. I'm not Italian, no.

I do believe in self-defense, but I don't think it's too much to ask someone to at least state why they specifically need, say, a handgun, when something else might be just fine. Handguns are concealable...that's their main advantage, but they are both less powerful and overall less accurate (yes, I realize the shotgun patterns...).

I'm not saying it should be difficult to get a permit necessarily, but I do feel that anyone who wants a handgun should have to apply for a permit, yes.



Well, we're making progress.

Now, with respect to the merits of a knife versus a handgun, I suggest you check with the experts.  Unless you really know what you're doing, you are going to get hurt in using a knife.  Also, the stronger, faster party in a knife fight has an advantage (not to mention things like 'reach').

Next, do you understand the difference between a 'right' and a 'priviledge?'  You are treating the right to self-defense as a priviledge.
Logged

Registered in Arizona for Fantasy election purposes.
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines