Jim, lines do have to be drawn, and we do it every day. It's just a question of where. You gavce a great example -- automobiles. Your government, in its wisdom, does in fact heavily regulate the manufacture, sale, ownership and operation of cars and trucks. There are many wonderful cars available in so-called "liberal" countries that we can't buy here, because the DOT thinks they are unsafe, or the EPA says they are too polluting, or whatever. The cars and trucks you can buy have to meet thousands of pages of government standards. They can't be too small or too big, have to include mandatory safety features, etc. Then, you have to be of a certain age, pass a test, pay a fee, and own insurance if you want to drive it. In some states, you need to pass an annual safety inspection in order to be able to continue to drive it. We can't just build or buy whatever motor vehicle we want and drive it wherever we want.

How is that any different from firearms? We as a society allow private ownership and operation of cars and trucks because they have utility that we believe offsets the costs that go along with them. Does a 400 hp Corvette Z06 have much utility? Not really, but we have decided to draw the line elsewhere and rely on owners of Corvettes and Vipers to operate them safely. Still, we don't allow people to import and drive Porsche 959's or Maclaren F1's on our roads, regardless of how well they drive. Similarly, you can't drive a Winston Cup car or a Top Fuel dragster to work or to the corner store. Does that make logical sense? Not always, but the line had to be drawn somewhere.

The same goes for firearms. I don't hear too many people arguing that private citizens should be able to go down to Wal-Mart and buy Stinger antiaircraft missiles (or order them from some Russian black marketeer). Thus, we all agree that antiaircraft missiles are on one side of the line. We also all agree that handguns and sporting weapons are on the other side of the line. What about land mines? Bazookas? Heavy machine guns? Rocket propelled grenades?

If you don't believe in line drawing, then you don't believe in laws, period. All laws have to specify what is lawful and what is not. If we can't draw the line between lawful and illegal, then anything goes and it is pure survival of the fittest and strongest. I don't want to live in that world.

Let's not argue about whether or not there should be a line -- there has to be. The question is where that line is.

 

Karl, if you're not currently employed in sales you are truly missing your calling.

 

>Karl, Karl, Karl. You just don't get it. A rifle with a
>plastic stock is no more dangerous to police officers or
>anyone else than a rifle with a wooden one. These rifles
>you keep referring to as assault weapons are merely
>cosmetically different to rifles you consider acceptable.
>Somehow these differences seem to scare you. Your attempts
>to categorize them with select fire weapons seems like a
>thinly-veiled attempt at creative reasoning.
>
>I will say that you have a unique ability to sound like the
>voice of reason to someone who in uninformed. Many people
>would read your comments and base their opinions on yours.
>Maybe that's how you formed your opinions in the first
>place. I am sorry for you that they are based on
>inaccuracies, half-truths.

Bill, Bill, Bill. Why resort to insults? Where the "inaccuracies and half-truths" in what I've said?

I'm not opposed to "military style" weapons. Plastics stocks make a lot more sense than wooden ones. I just question the utility of autoloading high-powered rifles. Whether it blued and has a wooden stock and looks like grandpa's deer rifle, or is all black with fancy composites and looks like something out of a sci-fi movie is entirely irrelevant.

And please get off your high horse about my experience. As I've said before, I have plenty of experience shooting so-called "assault rifles." I don't happen to own one now, mainly because I can't afford one. I don't oppose you owning one, as long as it's legal. In fact, if you're my friend, I hope you let me shoot it on occasion (I'll buy the ammo and clean it for you afterwards).

And yes, I know that my Glock 26 is short on stopping power (it is a 9 mm). As I've said before, it is my concealed carry weapon. I would have preferred a 27 (.40S&W), but my dad got me a great deal on the 26. It will have to do for now. I hope and pray that I never need to use it, but if I do, I know how, and 10 rounds of 9 mm hydrashock should be enough to get me out of danger.

I didn't approach this discussion with an agenda, and I'm not out to take anyone's guns away. I do appreciate a good, reasoned argument, but it's becoming clear that I'm not likely to find that here.

 

karlsd, sorry to take so long to reply I had to go out for a couple of hours. We seem to disagree, but that is OK, there are many that have and continue to disagree regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Is it milita or individual in degree of right? My opinion is that it is individual in right. Elsewhere in the Constitution the "People" is considered to be the sum of individuals and individual in right not collective. This administration, unlike the last one led by a draft dodger and pervert favors the individual concept. As for strict definition of arms, at the time of the writings there as parity in individual arms and most military arms. Now, there is not. Yes, it would be a problem if all individuals had the right to any weapon including some of the ridiculous examples given above. My point is there are many contentious sides to this issue. Rather than put all rights at risk by this Chinese water torture drip drip drip away of rights. The issue might be what is the debth of that right, but the priority is having it in the first place. After division by zero is zero. Our constitution could be changed if the will of the People wanted it to read for instance, no individual shall be allowed to own arms unless a member of a well regulated milita. But for those that think that is a good idea, beware, just who do you think will do the well regulating.

 

Oneof6, thank you. I agree with everything you said. Don't count me as a fan of the current administration, however. I was and still am an ardent McCain supporter, and grudgingly voted for W. as the lesser of two evils.

Let me say to everyone who still thinks I am advocating a ban on assault rifles -- I'm not. I think that our country would be a better place without them, but they are here to stay. As others have pointed out, "banning" assault rifles won't make them disappear. There are thousands and thousands of them out there, and they would just go underground. I'd rather have them in the homes of law abiding citizens who own them legally rather than hidden in the basements and garages of God knows who and being sold on the black market to drug dealers, bank robbers and terrorists.

Like it or not, however, we live in a society that is regulated by laws. Weapon ownership and use is subject to those laws. We can and should encourage open and vigorous debate about what those laws should be. Refusing to consider open dialogue about what constitutes reasonable regulation just makes the NRA look like a buncho of wacko gun worshippers.

I frequently find myself arguing strenuously against so-called "gun control" laws that don't make sense, and I have yet to lose one of those arguments. I don't intend to ever do so. I will always listen carefully and respond thoughtfully and respectfully to those who want to argue the issue, however, because that is the only way to ever convince someone to change his or her mind. I would encourage all of you not to automatically get defensive and dismiss those who favor gun control as "liberal gun grabbers" or the like. Talk to them about why you own guns, and why they are important to you and should be important to them. Listen to their concerns and respond to them. Then offer to teach them to shoot. You may wind up with a convert on your hands, and one less vote in favor of those who would take your guns away.

 

Why in the world
>would anyone want a high performance model like those
>Vikings? Even the name conotes danger.



HEY! i reseble that remark!:P

 

oops.....i ment resemble. i gotta stop drinking and typing

 

Whew! Man that's a lot of posts to read. My eyes are crosseyed.:-X23 All very interesting. I won't go on and on about what opinions I agree or disagree with. But I'll just say this. Something else to think about.

Suppose some extreme Islamic militant terrorists acctually do set of a nuke in this country. Or release some bio-chemical hazard into our food and water. (Of course our national securtiy plan would never let this happen, right)? Disrupt our government, local or national, our police become overwhelmed, emergency services break down, looting and riots break out. You could be on your own. Are you prepared? Desperate people will do desperate things. You might have to defend yourself and family against a mob. Some might be armed as well. (Remember the Los Angeles riots? The police were a BIG help. NOT)! Are you armed? If not you can go buy a gun. You say you need one now? Well sorry. You just might have to wait 10 days to pick it up that's all. (an auguement for waiting periods). As for me, I want the most powerful weapon I can have with simiautomatic fire. Why? Because I can. I want high capacity magazines. Why? Because someday the spam might hit the fan. Will it? I don't know. Let hope not. Do you know?

 

Karlsd: You post very well. I do not agree with your posting on limiting firearms but you are well written.

Why are you a McCain supporter? He has served this country well, but from my position he is losing it and acting irrationally. I could give you a list of reasons why I think that about McCain but there is not much point in me tearing him down until you have had a chance to sing his praises.

 

Rod (DailyDriver) has a good point. In the event of a general meltdown, we'd all want to be as armed as possible. Can't argue that point.

Dan, I'm not sure why you think McCain has lost it. This really isn't the appropriate discussion venue, though. Would you mind sending me a private message about it? I'd like to hear what your concerns are.

Thanks

Karl

 

I hope this is my last comment on this subject for awhile. Like I said most anti gun arguments are not based on logic, more on emotion, so it is tiring to have to constantly defend a basic right as stated in the bill of Rights. By the way the Supreme court did rule this year that the second ammendment deals with the individual and not the whole.

Anyway. What I wanted to say is, the reasons so many gun owners are so emotionally against further controls are several...

1) We have a huge number of gun control laws now on the books. Yet crime is still high. Why haven't the criminals quit using guns to commit crime? Because by definition criminals don't follow the law. Just us poor saps who are saddled with even more laws that really shouldn't apply to us but which do affect us are the ones who pay the dues. There are lots of laws regarding crime, why not enforce them? Afterall, murder should be illegal right? What difference if the criminal used a knife, gun, club or even automobile? Still a crime in my book. Some of the most dreadful murders are not done with guns so we can't use the argument that guns lead to awful murders. Read your daily news to see that some poor girl was killed with bare hands, that is gruesome and far beyond what I think could be accomplished with a gun. The person who did that should die a miserable death.

2) The stated goal of many gun control organizations IS to chip away at our rights by isolating individual groups of gun owners ,say "Saturday Night Specials" years ago, now working on "assault" weapons, eventually the rules for "assault" weapons can be applied to any semiautomatic weapon. Then once those demons are gone and there are fewer supporters, the gun grabbers can work on revolvers, or maybe bolt actions(afterall all bolt actions are based upon military designs from long ago), then lever actions since they are almost like an automatic. Finally we will be like England or Australia, both lands or anti gun nirvana, but strangely with skyrocketing crime rates. Even Japan, a paragon of anti gundom is having problems now. Where did the criminals get their guns since society as a whole has no guns in Japan? Of course there is a huge pool of guns all over the world. Yes, lets make it illegal all over the world not to have guns. Guns laws will save us! That will dry up the supply for sure. O'sama and Sadamm loves the idea.

3) Almost(I say this because I don't have the statistics handy to state with absolutes, but the grabbers usually have something made up handy to wave around) every country that has started registration or heavy regulation of guns, has eventually taken the final step of confiscating all guns, usually without compensation. Don't tell me the $50 gun buy back programs are fair. I don't own any guns worth anywhere as little as $50. I own a couple guns that when I bought them were worth $50 but now they are catelogged around $300, nothing special about them either. But then I shouldn't complain about insufficient compensation, after all it is very common for property owners to loose protperty thru emminant domain. This is probably the biggest fear(probably justified) of gun owners. The government identifies owners and eventually confiscates them from the poor law abiding owners. Who collects them from the criminals? Will the thugs come down to the local PD and take advantage of the buyback?

4)All current gun designs available for sale are stringently regulated as to manufacture and sale. Ever try to order a gun thru the mail? Now you have to go to a heavily regulated dealer, fillout forms and have background checks. I could on the other hand buy a car on ebay or many other ways even if I am a criminal. Heck I can go to a 3rd hand car lot and buy a cheap car with cash and use false ID(Criminals are good at this BTW) and drive off with yet another car to follow my life of crime. Oh heck why not just steal the car. Not everyone can own a gun, almost any idiot can legally own and drive a car. Most states do require a gun safety course, I have been required to take two in different states. Many states only require passing a written test to get a drivers license, I have seen idiots and illiterates/"no speakie English" pass. None of the available designs are anything near the firepower level of anything the military has, rightly so. At best we can yank our triggers quickly and hope for the best. Most designs are just tarted up versions of civilian designs that have been around for decades or more. But they look evil and they appeal to a segment of gun owners, so they can be isolated and legislated away in preparation for future attacks on other segments.
Of course as I have said, most civilian designs have a basis in old military designs.

I guess it really comes down to Americans'feeling of freedom and individualness. It also leads way back to the early founders of our country. Thy didn't trust big government so they wanted to make sure there would be some deterrent, however small in our eyes, to keep government from getting out of hand. Heck ignoring guns entirely, doesn't it bother some of you how there is so much regulation in almost all aspects of life? Reulation in many things is good, but now we are allowing government to intrude in areas that are best handled with common sense and at home. This of course is a whole nuther dispute going on, but now the government is asking us to peep into our neighbors windows. I don't know if this is good or bad, but it makes me very uncomfortable, smacks a bit too much of "good citizenship" from the first half of the 2oth century in some nations of Europe.

Oh well. Unless I can add something new or useful, I need to stop rambling. But at least we have the right to argue thse points. There are many countries in this world that we would not have the right and might even be in jail for doing what we have done on this website. Coincidentally I would bet many(if not all)those countries have an all pervasive government and no individual right to keep and bear arms. Coincidence. Probably, but I wonder.

Blabbed too much already.
Jim Henderson

 

Karlsd is right on. I have always enjoyed guns and I got my first rifle at age 11 from my father (a police officer). For some years I was an NRA member and enjoyed their magazine, the competition and the association with other members. I finally dropped out (like many others) because I could no longer support their politics. Their main point is that ANY regulation of ANY kind is part of an ongoing conspiracy to take our guns away. I see nothing wrong with banning fully automatic weapons and teflon coated bullets, or any other reasonable regulation. I plan to keep my guns and have no fear that I will have them taken away.
Dono

 

Sorry, one last comment, I hope.

Do not delude yourself that if society were to break down, that you and the rifle of your choice will have a chance against a mob of thugs especially if they are armed. Yes, many of us can pick off a target at 400 yards(I can with my S&W 29), but all it takes is one lucky Bozo and your ticket is punched. Worst come to worst, it is almost always better to run and keep out of shooting range. Don't even think you can beat a well trained military group. One guy and his weapon are best used with stealth. Rambo really doesn't work for most of us.

Still if my back were to the wall, having the weapon of my choice is probably better than nothing. I feel more comfortable knowing that I have "assault" weapons available, but I hope I know enough to avoid situations where I am forced to use them.

Jim Henderson

Whew, perhaps one of my shortest postings.

 

Tomorrow morning, I commence the ultimate gun control. At 9 am, My Tennessee State Certification Course, for Firearms Instructor starts.. 24 hours of instruction later, I get to take the test.. Then I will have all the gun control I need.

Wm
'96 F450 White with Grey interior Crew Cab. Banks Turbo, Intercooler and Exhaust,
Power pack Chip, shift kit, Auxiliary transmission, electronic enhanced transmission control,
16 forward and 4 reverse ratios. 340hp 660ft lb 4 wheel drive, 4.10 gears, 12,ooo# winch

 

karlsb wrote:

"That still leaves the question, however, of what "arms" we have the right to keep and bear? Some argue that the 2nd Amendment is about guaranteeing the ability of the citizens to rise up and overthrow an unjust government (not true, but let's leave that point aside for now, as I've addressed it earlier).

I agree with you that everything is a matter of where you draw the line. There are opinions and there are facts. It is a fact that Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Smith in November of 1787, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government". I would be interested in any information you may have that resistance against a tyrannical government was not the main reason for the 2nd Ammendment. I have more quotes to support the fact that it was.


"If that is the case, then "arms" should be interpreted to mean that citizens should have the right to keep and bear whatever "arms" are necessary to fight against an unjust federal government. Of course, our government is armed with F-16 fighters, Stealth Bombers, smart bombs, tactical nukes, M1A tanks, etc. A broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would mean that "the people" have to be allowed to "keep and bear" all of those things".

It sounds like we had better start taking back some of our freedoms. Our rights to defend ourselves have never been lost even though laws may have been passed. Private cannon and warships were used against the British.


"That's obviously ridiculous, too. No civilian uprising stands a chance against the U.S. Army."

Do the Viet Cong count as a civilian uprising?


"Over a century ago, half of the United States couldn't defend itself against a Union Army that was armed with far more primitive weapons than we have today (remember the Civil War?). What makes you think that citizens armed with semiautomatic rifles would be able to defeat the modern U.S. Army?"

Again, the Viet Cong did a pretty good job. Of course the part of an army still loyal to a tyrannical gov't may not surrender American soil so easily but does that mean we should stop the effort to take back our freedoms? I would argue no.


"And don't say that "the Army would be on our side." If that's the case, then the citizens don't need weapons at all, because the Army would be fighting for them against a helpless Congress and White House".

It would probably be part of the army. Well armed citizens might make the difference.

James Beaman
Friendswood, Texas