[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-Jul-02 AT 04:35 PM (EST)]You have to consider the what-ifs, don't you? Isn't that the reason most of you are giving for being gun owners?

WHAT IF SOMEONE BREAKS INTO MY HOUSE AND TRIES TO KILL MY FAMILY?

I would like to think enough responsible people would be interested in gun control measures (not gun banning measures) that are positive without going to the extremes some of those other countries did.

The Constitution may give you the right to bear arms, but it doesn't tell you what you have to do to get a gun or what types of weapons are allowed. Nobody complains about the 4" limit on knife blades, do they? I would never want to see that right taken away. That isn't what gun control is about. For the right to bear arms, the government could say all you get are .22 caliber rifles. That would satisfy the Constitution, wouldn't it? Then all the other arguments are worthless.

Also, just because something is illegal doesn't mean people aren't going to do it. Like you said, you could find a lot of other ways to kill someone. We don't need to add to the choices with instant access to legal firearms. Of course we can't do much about illegal arms. I know some of you state that the law entitles you to go buy a gun RIGHT NOW for use immediately, and you want to keep that right just because you want it, but does it fill a need for anyone? Is there any reason why someone would need to buy a gun for use right now? I am not saying there isn't, but I don't know of any. What is wrong with a waiting period? I do have an open mind, and if you show me a reason to have instant access, other than "I want it now", I will vote against a waiting period. You aren't going to need it for home defense, because once your home is invaded, you won't be able to run out and buy one. I can only see it as being a convenient way for an angry person to commit a crime.

The comments I made earlier about the weapons that were of concern during the initial talks about assault weapons were some of the main reasons they wanted to ban those types of weapons. Just because they didn't ban them doesn't mean they weren't targeted in parts of the country. The ban just didn't include them.

Like most things, democracy will decide what is to happen with gun control. If the majority doesn't want assault weapons and they want waiting periods, eventually that is what will be. For the time being, I do not want assault weapons and I do want waiting periods and very complete background checks. It took the State of Michigan 3 months to grant me operating authority for my trucks, but a gun takes no time at all.

I also want to state that I will go along with whatever the outcome is. Fair is fair, majority wins. That's the way this country works. I don't think any less of any of you for your beliefs, as I would expect the same from all of you.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 20-Jul-02 AT 05:05 PM (EST)]
>I would like to think enough responsible people would be
>interested in gun control measures (not gun banning
>measures) that are positive without going to the extremes
>some of those other countries did.

Give me a break. This is complete boulderdash. By implying that only "responsible people" would be the ones interested in gun control makes the assumption that the ones who do not are irresponsible. Besides, the attacks on gun owners keep increasing. I have seen no evidence that since they have passed some restrictions that they (the anti's) are stopping their assualt on the right to bear arms. To believe the restrictions will not be increased is disillusional.

This is a typical tactic to shame others into agreeing with a point because they fear being labeled irresponsible, or whatever name you want to use. This tactic is used a lot by the left.

Your final statement about majority wins is incorrect. That would be mob rules.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-Jul-02 AT 04:03 AM (EST)]. I know some of you state
>that the law entitles you to go buy a gun RIGHT NOW for use
>immediately, and you want to keep that right just because
>you want it, but does it fill a need for anyone? Is there
>any reason why someone would need to buy a gun for use right
>now? I am not saying there isn't, but I don't know of any.
>What is wrong with a waiting period? I do have an open mind,
>and if you show me a reason to have instant access, other
>than "I want it now", I will vote against a waiting period.

How about "I NEED it now". If you or your family were being stalked by some slime ball, get a court order to keep him away. If he doesn't obay the court order and threaten's your life and says he is going to kill you, go buy a gun to protect yourself. Just hope he doesn't make good on his threat before your waiting period is up. This sort of thing has happened. An woman was killed by her estranged husband because the police couldn't protect her. He laughed at the court order and said he was going to kill her. She wanted to buy a gun to protect herself. She passed the instant background check but had to wait. She died that night.

There were stories of people wanting to buy guns to protect themselves during the Los Angeles riots but couldn't because they had to wait while looting and rioting took place. If you lived in that area where that truck driver almost lost his life to a mob, (remember him?) would you want a gun now or later?


>I also want to state that I will go along with whatever the
>outcome is. Fair is fair, majority wins. That's the way this
>country works. I don't think any less of any of you for your
>beliefs, as I would expect the same from all of you.

I respectfully disagree on this one. As stated above this would be mob rules. Suppose the majority in the senate votes to remove the bill of rights protecting your right to unlawful search and siezure, limit your free speech, ban your religious freedom altogether and yes your right to own a gun, just to name a few. Isn't the Constitution there to protect those rights? Isn't that why a judge may strike down a law because it becomes unconstitutional if it is in conflict with those rights no matter what the majority says? If the people vote in a law because they don't know any better or think it will serve them well, but in reality is a bad law because in violates certian civil rights, a good thing because the majority wants it? Uninformed people can be like sheep being let to the slaughter by self seeking politicans. They get the people to vote their rights away. But the constitution is there to protect those rights. That's way law suits are filed when a bad law becomes voted in by the majority. Judges strike down laws like this all the time as being unconstitutional and it's a good thing because I don't want the majority to try to vote away OUR rights.

 

I am a Gun collecter but had to leave them all with family when I transfered to england. About the only gun a person can own over here is an air gun. Guess what. Violent crime still exists! Seems the criminals and Bad guys of the world do not need to have permits or abide by "pesky" laws. Just 2 weeks ago a man was shot in front of his family while answering his door in East London. I believe in gun control to a degree. I am all about making it harder for criminals to get guns and never minded the 7 day wait. However, I was stationed in Texas when Bush brought on the concealed carry laws and could see a definate drop in violent crimes. Tends to make you think twice about robbing an old lady when You know you may very well get ventilated for it. Take care.

Brad

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-Jul-02 AT 08:41 AM (EST)]There are probably thousands of stories about the people that answered the door only to be shot when it was opened. A friend of mine died that way. Being a gun owner himself did not save him. How many of you keep your weapons loaded and ready and carry them, drawn and pointed, to the front door just in case? How many of you keep your weapons loaded and next to you on your bed at night for self defense? If you don't already have it loaded and in your hand, it is too late! Even if you do, chances are the agressor has a gun, which only gives you a 50/50 chance, and if you lose, now he has his way with your family. Some use 9/11 as a reasoin. What a crock. Do you actually think you are that important that a terrorist is going to come knocking at your door and announce the fact that he is a terrorist bent on killing your family and give you the time to get your weapon? Right. If you want a gun for home defense, fine. Just don't lull anyone else into believing that it will help much. How about the stories of the wives or husbands that have shot their spouses because they thought they were someone else?

The right to bear arms? Where is my right to bear arms. I drive a truck. I used to haul high dollar loads into some pretty bad neighborhoods, and I considered getting a gun. Guess what? No guns allowed for truck drivers. Imagine that? The 2nd Amendment apparently doesn't apply to everyone, does it? You non-truck drivers (not you personally) are the ones that vote for the lawmakers, and you have taken away MY right to protection. What have you got to fear from a truck driver?

My comment earlier about "responsible" people was also mis-interpreted. I said nothing about any of you or other gun owners being irresponsible. I was actually talking about some of you being the responsible ones to help make sure reasonable levels of control are enacted versus unreasonable ones. Implied? Sounds to me like a little paranoia is setting in.

I am not up on the wording of the 2nd Amendment, and I should have read it before writing these posts, but I don't believe it sets any selective standards for "the right to bear arms"! It doesn't set any criteria for the type of arms either. I am sure we could use it to defend our RIGHT to own claymores and hand grenades. After all, when that plane load of terrorists singles out your home, those would be far superior than some 30.06.

If we use the what-if's and the "it happened that way back then, over there" for everything, I am sure we could find reasons pro and con about every choice we make everyday. I would like to believe that there is a way for all of us to be happy with gun ownership. Unfortunately, that will never be. Some of you talk about law enforcement. You wrote that it is illegal for me to kill someone. What's your point? I don't see where that has stopped anyone in the past. Proper enforcement would be to insure the crime does not take place. That won't happen. We don't have "law enforcement", we have "crime and punishment", but only if you get caught. I chose to live in an area that doesn't have much of a crime rate because I know, no matter how many guns I own, I can't possibly be around all of my family all of the time to defend them, and I couldn't walk around with a loaded weapon all the time IN CASE somebody knocked at my door and was waiting to blow me away. I can, however, try to make sure undesirable people don't have instant access to weapons legally. You will never stop the illegal use oor posession, but some things, such as crimes of passion, and accidental shootings, can be reduced, and I think that is a worthwhile thing.

 

DailyDriver,
If a law was enacted to take away my freedoms, that would be all of our fault for electing such people to office. That is one of the reasons I get so angry over some peoples reasons for who they vote for. Regardless of a politicians stance on the other HUNDREDS of issues, they will single out one issue.

#1. Abortion. Many, many women vote for a candidate that sees abortion the way they believe. Hitler could rise again and be against abortion and the Pro-Life movement would vote for him.
#2. Snowmobile use in Yellowstone Park. I am a snowmobiler. A lot of my fellow snowmobilers voted for Bush for one reason. He is against (so he claims, anyway) closing Yellowstone to snowmobiles. Again, these people (not necessarily all of them, but many of them) didn't know or care what else Bush stood for. All they cared about was keeping Yellowstone accessible. He could have wanted WW III, but as long as Yellowstone remains open for snowmobiles, he's the one for me!!!
#3. Gun Control. Would you vote for Hitler and Mussolini as President and Vice President if they were against gun control, but the ticket they were running against wanted to impose a 3 day wait for new gun purchases and wanted to eliminate assault type weapons? A lot of NRA members would. They view that as the only reason to choose a candidate. You know, that whole " when you pull it from my cold, dead fingers" thing.

 

brienobrien,

"I don't think our founding fathers meant"

That is exactly what causes problems with the Constitution. You have no idea what the founding fathers meant, you just know what the founding fathers wrote. Anyone can interpret it the way they see fit, but that does not make it so. Does the Constitution say a mentally unstable individual can't own a gun? A felon? Does the Constitution say I can't own nuclear weapons? Of course not, but because it doesn't say so, I must be allowed, under my Constitutional rights to bear arms, correct? How do you know they weren't for future background checks and the elimination of assault weapons? Old things get updated. People put IFS on a '56 Ford pickup to improve it, so, being as we don't know what the founding fathers meant, only what they said, we need to either uphold it the way it is written, or adapt it to modern day society. What you do is take the part that you like and interpret it the way you want, then stand up and shout "2nd Amendment, 2nd Amendment!!!". If it is to be interpreted, who gets to be the one to do the interpretting? You? Me? Wouldn't we all be selfish if given that choice? What is good for you may not be good for me. I will, however, try to make sure what I vote for is good for the majority. I might be wrong, but noone knows for sure, and noone here can tell me I am wrong. They can only disagree with my view.

 

Enduringexplorer: You are correct in that I know what the founding fathers wrote. It is there in black & white. Period. I am not interpreting anything. The writings are quite explicit and leave little for interpretation. Yet many people, and legislators, seem to be doing exactly what you are alluding to: revisionist reinterpretation. The second amemdment says what it says. There are two distinct concepts there. Plain and simple.

The framers of the constitution took their words (ideas) so seriously that they made it very difficult to change them. You may know that it takes 3/4 of the majority to vote a constituion change in a contitutional convention called by a 2/3 vote to call the convention. This is no easily accomplished task, and for good reason.

Therefore, one can filibuster all day long about meanings and updates, but it is meaningless until a constitutional convention is convened to debate and change, or amend, any portion of this LIVING document.

In the meantime, I will continue to exercise my rights under that document to the fullest extent that the law will allow. Remember, there are places in the US already that adhere to "The Bill Of Rights, Void where prohibited by law". For example, try getting a gun permit in NYC or DC. The average law abiding citizen can't, therefore if you exercise your 2nd amendment right, you are a potential felon. An excellent example of a total gun ban where only the "bad guys" have guns. Remember Bernie Goetz in NYC? He would be dead if he was not able to protect himself. I am not so anxious to change any part of the constitution unless it is accomplished the way the framers intended. Lawmakers just can't legislate away our contitutional rights through simple legilative majority. Yet they are attempting to do it more often than it should be allowed by we the citizens.

In summary, if you feel that the 2nd amemdment, or any part of the Constitution, should be changed or modified, then work to call a contitutional convention. This is the way the framers intended for the document to changed. The back door attempts to change the contitution that continually happen in this country are shameful. It seems to be the result of special interest groups, legislative "dogooders", and over zealous citizens, that think they know what is best for eveyone in society. They, knowingly or unknowingly, are undermining the God given rights and freedoms that are secured and protected by our Constitution.

Change the contitution if you will, but please do it the way the framers WROTE that it be done in Article V of the Contstitution.
:-) Brien

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-Jul-02 AT 03:17 PM (EST)]brienobrien,
I couldn't agree with you more! The Constitution is what it is. As I said before, the Constitution and the Amendments state what should be in a broad sense. The Constitution/2nd Amendment gives EVERYONE the right to own and bear arms, it just doesn't say what those arms should be. If the government that we elect chooses to eliminate certain weapons from sale or manufacture, that is a different subject and is not a right protected by the Constitution. However, if the government wishes to pick and choose who may legally own a firearm, isn't that against the Constitution? Does the 2nd Amendment list such limitations? That being the case, shouldn't paroled felons be entitled to own firearms? We allow some changes to be made and claim it is for the good of the people, but isn't it still a violation of the 2nd Amendment?

I agree there is a proper way to change things. That is the way it should be. I am against all lobbyists of any type. Some may claim to do good, but they all try to get in "the back door", so to speak.
You can't use the Constitution as a crutch to claim rights to certain types of weapons if those weapons are outlawed. A prime example is a sawed-off shotgun. The barrel must be a minimum length to be legal. I don't recall anyone ever claiming that was against their 2nd Amendment rights. Like everyone here has said, the 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms, but the government still has the legal right to determine what weapons are manufactured and sold. If anti-gun groups push and push hard enough and with enough support, the only gun left may be a musket. That would still be legal, wouldn't it? That would still be within the confines of the 2nd Amendment, right?

 

Enduringexplorer: Yes you are correct about the erosion and constant dissoulution of the 2nd amemdment. Let us examine the 1st amendment to remove the emotion concerning firearms.

The first amendement protects and guarantees our right to free speech but it does not include screaming "fire" in a theater when there is no such threat. Therefore, the first amendment has limitations that are governed by a free people that submit themselves to a rule of law.

The second amendment is afforded the same protections and limitations. These are governed also by a free people that submit themselves to a rule of law as well. Convicted felons and children are not accorded the right because the overall danger to the ordinary citizen outweighs the natural right of the amendment in these particular instances. It would be like shouting fire in the theater. I think you are very intelligent to see the continued dimunition of the right to keep and bear arms through legislative restrictions upon the word "arms". However, todays "arms" are firearms and they are the reasonably accepted firepower in our modern times. They were the reasonable and accepted firepower of the 18th century citizen. I think that the 2nd amendment expressly protects and guarantees the citizens to own and bear "arms" (firearms). Remember, our 2nd amemedment has its roots in the Magna Carta in English Common Law. Jefferson would have been quite familiar with this concept as he studied from the law books of Sir William Blackstone of England. It was these law books that were provided to him by his teacher in law, Geworge Wythe. They were the generally accepted law books for England in the 18th century.

Now, if the 2nd amendment affords the citizens the right to own firearms, then how does the government legally legislate away the citizens right to own that firearm. I do not believe they lawfully can, unless they can prove the danger of the firearm outweighs the guaranteed and protected right of the citizen to own and keep that firearm. To merely outlaw the sale and manufacture of firearms is, as I have stated, just a back door way to prempt the constitution. Where is the overall danger to society that outweighs the over protection of the second amendment? Is the armed citizen shouting fire in the theater? I do not think so.

Since our constitution is rooted in English Common Law, then we must consider from where the Contitution derived its concepts. Someone may correct me with another source, but the second amemdment is traced fully back to the Magna Carta. That being the case, all citizens would be entitled to keep and bear arms within the constraints as cited above,. Regretably, the British Parliment eliminated this right accorded to its citizens, however we have the power to prevent this from happening here in America. We do not have a parlimentary system in which the ordinanry citizen is represented in the minority of the framework. Furthermore, both Jefferson and Madison were in general agreement with regard to the entire American constitutional framework. Some real disagreements came from Hamilton but they were primarily economic and in the area governmental structure. The Bill of Rights was added to the constitution to guarantee and protect citizens from the tyrany that could arise out of a concentration of power in the hand of a few, as we have witnessed in the history of England. This was quintessional Jefferson, ever suspicious of the unbridled powers of government.

I can't say where it is going to end but I do know that Thomas Jefferson did advocate periodic rebellion by the citizens when they felt it was necessary. I know that today's citizens can't violently challange the American government, but we can fight back. It is through the forums of debate and the power of the vote that we can protect our rights as defined and guaranteed in the Constitution.

Brien

 

From one message:

> Assault rifles are particularly dangerous, even in "neutered"
> (semi-auto) form, for one reason -- they are powerful enough to
> pierce standard body armor wore by law enforcement

To another:

> One of the historical reasons that gun ownership is a RIGHT,
> not a privilege, is prevention of a tyrannical government's
> intolerable treatment of its people. When private citizens have
> no serious means of offering resistance

Exactly!

When citizens have no way to effectively defend themselves,
governments run amok! Which is why military governments in Central
America can abduct citizens in the middle of the night and drop
them into a volcano whenever they choose.

You think if our forefathers fought the British with spears they
would have won our freedom? A democracy (which we are not) cannot
subject the minority to tyranny if they own weapons capable of
defending themselves from a government run amok with
murderous intentions.

Though, if you take your weapon and commit a crime (such as shooting or killing a police office or someone else while in the commission of a felony such as robbing a store) you deserve and should get an express ticket to be deep fried.

The worse crimes that create the most danger to society such as Oklahoma and the World Trade Center towers are committed without the benefit of firearms. Banning anything other than weapons of mass destruction only deprives citizens the ability to defend themselves.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-Jul-02 AT 07:25 PM (EST)]>
>My comment earlier about "responsible" people was also
>mis-interpreted. I said nothing about any of you or other
>gun owners being irresponsible. I was actually talking about
>some of you being the responsible ones to help make sure
>reasonable levels of control are enacted versus unreasonable
>ones. Implied? Sounds to me like a little paranoia is
>setting in.

No, you didn't it. It was easily implied. I went back and reread your orginal posts. Paranoid? maybe I am. I've heard so many people preaching a song similiar to yours, that, anymore, I get edgy. Guess that does make me paranoid then.

 

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 22-Jul-02 AT 07:46 PM (EST)]>It has been my experience that people who beleive in "gun
>control" don't beleive in spanking there children. Let's not
>teach our children that there are serious consequences for
>doing wrong.




you listen and you listen good. i was "spanked" as a child. i got it all, open hand, closed fist, face, body, you name it i got IT. YOU KNOW WHY I GOT IT? cuz i stood up to my father and somehow thought that if he beat me.......he wouldnt do it to my mom. i did everything i could to make him angry at me so he wouldnt be mad at her. wanna know why he was mad at her? cuz she was trying to protect me. i know this isnt the norm but doesnt it prove a point?

when my mother and i moved away, we moved to one of the most affluent(sp?) parts of virginia beach(600mi away), no we didnt live in a huge home we had a small apt. on the edge of the "rich" school district. some of the most undisiplined and care free kids i ever saw were in that school. theyd go out stealing stuff from cars, blow a new car up just for fun. these kids were the elite, sons or daughters of a higher military disipline. explaine that. these kids were the ones that said" i can get into my dads gun locker, wanna see 'em?"

i wont "spank" my kids when i have them.....and i dont support gun control......theres another one for you to ponder.

 

From one message:
> Assault rifles are particularly dangerous, even in "neutered"
> (semi-auto) form, for one reason -- they are powerful enough to
> pierce standard body armor wore by law enforcement

The ability to pierce body armor has nothing to do if it is an "assault" rifle or not. A Remington Model 700 chambered in .223 remington (commenly used by folks hunting varmint) and an M-16 which is chambered in the same caliber both have the ability to pierce body armor. The AK47 chambered in 7.62x39 and the SKS in the same caliber are not very effective at defeating ballistic armor. That is one of the main reasons that alot of the countries formarly using it went with the newer version of the AK-74U. The smaller round and higher velocity is closer to the 5.56 Nato cartridge(not interchangeable though)What I am getting at more than anything is that it depends on caliber of the projectile and velocity. A .22 Long Rifle is more effective at defeating most ballistic armor than say a .45 ACP for the simple fact that the .22 is a smaller diameter round which will more effectively penetrate the kevlar weave. I do however get riled when people classify post ban assault rifles as more dangerous than a hunting rifle. When it comes down too it a pellet gun is dangerous in the wrong hands.

Gun Control begins and alot of times ends with the Gun Owner. I do not feel a loaded Gun in a house behind a door or in the night stand will get You anything but killed. How good is Your aim going to be when You are scared awake at 3am by a prowler standing at the foot of Your bed? I cringe when I walk into a house with children running around and see a shotgun standing up behind the door. Yes I am a collector and an enthusiast but As for me and mine we will be keeping our firearms in the safe. unloaded and locked. Items can be replaced My family cannot.

On the otherhand though. I am a firm believer in the Concealed carry law such as is in effect in Texas. I do feel that the guide lines should be a little more strict though. When I went through the course in 1996 the shooting portion was just ridiculous. I could have closed my eyes and still passed probably. I hear it has changed somewhat though. From talking to some of the Police in the area a year or so after the carry law went into effect I was told that crime had definatly decreased.

Anyway enough of my rambling. I could write a novel on this probably. lol. I am not trying to rant and rave or start an argument here. Just hopefully clear up some misconceptions. Take it easy.


Brad Godkin
1986 F350 XLT
CC/SRW 6.9 auto

 

EnduringExplorer , sorry to burst your bubble but you and your reasoning behind your post are ridiculous. Do you really want to know why gun control and gun ban are percieved as the same exact thing by people? Because once you anti-gun people get the slightest bit of momentum you will take it and run with it and take it to the ridiculous point of banning all semi-auto rifles and handguns. And if guns are so dangerous, why were they ever invented in the first place?? To kill animals for FOOD! But wait, you say that this is unethical and totally reject it because killing a live animal is not humane. Well where in the H*LL do you think the hamburger or chicken that you buy in the store comes from?? Do you people really think that it grows on trees or something?? Nothing I repeat Nothing bad happens with guns until they get into the wrong hands. But if you ban all guns how are these innocent people going to protect themselves?? Because the criminals are going to be able to get guns no matter what. Oh, and if guns are so bad you might as well take away knives too, because knives kill every bit as many people as guns. Then what will you cut your store bought, once living, innocent steak with?? Oh, by the way enduring explorer I am 16 years old.
dayton