K-9 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Britain doesn't have guns and their government seems to be doing just fine at not oppressing them. This isn't the 1700s. This isn't the Middle Ages. This is a globalized time where the US striking out and oppressing its people will basically ensure its complete and total destruction. The whole argument is the same as "my commercial air liner might go down so I brought my own parachute". We don't need these silly pacifiers. They're pointless. You've never seen 'Red Dawn' have you? I thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 the problem with gun control is where does it end? it was we gotta ban full automatic weapons. It has mostly happened with only gun experts and what not being allowed to purchase them now. Now its we gotta ban semi automatics with clips. So lets say that happens. how long till we say lets ban every weapon type from 1777 on up? I agree that me owning some rifles and shotguns won't stop a miltary strike from killing me and destroying my house. The right to bear arms to me is meant to provide a form of resistance to opression from my govt or a conquering one by making the cost of oppression so high that the oppressors can't sustain it. Having said that, more work needs to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of maniacs If people can live just fine without bazookas, missile launchers and anti-aircraft guns in their front yard they will do just fine with standard shotguns, riffles and revolvers. I laugh when when the "Right to Bear Arms" is clung onto. There is a difference between "arms" as our founding fathers knew them and a highly efficient killing machine designed to kill many in a short period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
... Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I laugh when when the "Right to Bear Arms" is clung onto. There is a difference between "arms" as our founding fathers knew them and a highly efficient killing machine designed to kill many in a short period of time. Not really. A rifle, back then, was a highly efficient killing machine. And, on that point, if they were to be scared by how efficient weapons were to become, they'd probably have facilitated some way for the people to defend itself from a government wielding such weapons. If you want to walk down the "what the Founding Fathers would think" road, they'd have certainly made it more difficult for the federal government to seize power from the states had they known the depths of apathy and selfishness amongst the populace many generations after the founding fathers were dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 You've never seen 'Red Dawn' have you? I thought so. Yes, because that's a realistic scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampD Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Of course we shouldn't ban all of those things, it's a ridiculous argument. But does that stop speed limits in residential areas? Have residential area speed limits led to the banning of automobiles? Of course not, and that's the point. Literally every regulation passed relating to anything has a potentially slippery slope--but we haven't slipped down those hypothetical slopes. I see no reason why firearm regulation is any more slippery than anything else. Unless you stop it at the manufacturing and distribution level, A whole bunch more regulations aren't going to do anything. When my grandfather passed, I got his two guns. I live in NJ though and he lived in NY. I thought there might be some laws about state lines and such so I went to a gun shop to ask how to get them. I ended up going to four shops by the end and they all told me the same thing. I had to go to the Police station and get fingerprinted and a background check in order to get a firearm purchaser ID card, which I did (and of course they misplaced it and it took almost six months to get). Then they said I had to go to a gun shop in NY and have them ship it store to store where I could then pick it up, for a fee, of course. The thing is, while I was finding all that out,.. I ALREADY HAD THE GUNS! I went back to visit family and just brought them back. All the gun laws did was make me jump through hoops for a couple of months because I want to be bonifidy. And in doing research since then, I'm not even really sure that I had to do any of that given the types of guns and their (non)use. Although, I think one of them may have been illegal for a minute there under the Clinton Assault ban,.. still not sure. The laws did nothing to keep the guns out of my hands. You've never seen 'Red Dawn' have you? I thought so. I swear the Bush administration watched that movie before going into Iraq. "Insurgents", "Hearts and Minds", etc, all the terms from the Iraq war were in that movie. I'll just say it's a dark time in a nation's history when Patrick Swayze is setting policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Not really. A rifle, back then, was a highly efficient killing machine. And, on that point, if they were to be scared by how efficient weapons were to become, they'd probably have facilitated some way for the people to defend itself from a government wielding such weapons. If you want to walk down the "what the Founding Fathers would think" road, they'd have certainly made it more difficult for the federal government to seize power from the states had they known the depths of apathy and selfishness amongst the populace many generations after the founding fathers were dead. While the Pennsylvania Long Rifle was in existence back then, it was rarely used. Nor was it an efficient killing machine since it took so long to load/re-load. It had limited applications as a sniper weapon but that's about it. The vast majority of soldiers on both sides used muskets as their primary firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 While the Pennsylvania Long Rifle was in existence back then, it was rarely used. Nor was it an efficient killing machine since it took so long to load/re-load. It had limited applications as a sniper weapon but that's about it. The vast majority of soldiers on both sides used muskets as their primary firearm. Weren't most soldiers killed during the Revolutionary War killed by cannon balls and infection? It is near impossible to kill someone with a musket. You have a better chance beating someone to death with a musket than shooting them to death from any decent range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Weren't most soldiers killed during the Revolutionary War killed by cannon balls and infection? It is near impossible to kill someone with a musket. You have a better chance beating someone to death with a musket than shooting them to death from any decent range. That's true. Muskets were notoriously inaccurate from short range, let alone anything further. The shot would actually rattle around the barrel as it came out so it was very difficult to determine where the shot was going. That's why the barrels were so long; it was unsafe to have the musket shot exit the barrel any closer to the shooter. Anyway, my point above was to point out that rifled barrels just weren't in vogue yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deluca67 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Not really. A rifle, back then, was a highly efficient killing machine. And, on that point, if they were to be scared by how efficient weapons were to become, they'd probably have facilitated some way for the people to defend itself from a government wielding such weapons. If you want to walk down the "what the Founding Fathers would think" road, they'd have certainly made it more difficult for the federal government to seize power from the states had they known the depths of apathy and selfishness amongst the populace many generations after the founding fathers were dead. I have no doubt that if they were forming the foundation of this country today, they would have gone about things differently. That's true. Muskets were notoriously inaccurate from short range, let alone anything further. The shot would actually rattle around the barrel as it came out so it was very difficult to determine where the shot was going. That's why the barrels were so long; it was unsafe to have the musket shot exit the barrel any closer to the shooter. Anyway, my point above was to point out that rifled barrels just weren't in vogue yet. Thanks for bringing historical facts to the conversation regarding rifled barrels. I am am not a "gun person", obviously, I just don't understand why people feel the need to be in possession of such a killing machine. Defending yourself is one thing, how often does the need to kill large numbers of people instantly occur? When is the last time you heard a news story that contained "good thing Mr. Citizen had his automatic weapon and killed that group of people in such a short amount of time. it avoided a real tragedy?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 If you want to walk down the "what the Founding Fathers would think" road, they'd have certainly made it more difficult for the federal government to seize power from the states had they known the depths of apathy and selfishness amongst the populace many generations after the founding fathers were dead. I cannot agree more. People either forget or have not learned about the articles of confederation. When the articles of confederation was established, the federal government had little control. Almost to the extent of a state of anarchy. Our founding fathers decided a more structured, federal government needed to be established. This was established w/ the writing of the Constitution. A problem w/ our Constitution has been the continuing growth of federal government control. As time has passed, states have continued to lose power, control and voice. As each day, act, election, law passes, we continue to step towards a state of totalitarianism. And this bothers me greatly. Our country was founded under the idea of states first. Why has our country deterred from that? Why should the federal government come first? Did the Confederacy, not that I support their actions, foresee what the federal government would become? Did the Confederacy actually have the right idea, which would be the want/continuation of states rights coming before the federal government? In my opinion, states rights should come before whatever rights the federal government may have. It is how our country was initially set up. I believe if states rights were truly coming first and had the power, we wouldn't be dealing w/ the problems we have today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I cannot agree more. People either forget or have not learned about the articles of confederation. When the articles of confederation was established, the federal government had little control. Almost to the extent of a state of anarchy. Our founding fathers decided a more structured, federal government needed to be established. This was established w/ the writing of the Constitution. A problem w/ our Constitution has been the continuing growth of federal government control. As time has passed, states have continued to lose power, control and voice. As each day, act, election, law passes, we continue to step towards a state of totalitarianism. And this bothers me greatly. Our country was founded under the idea of states first. Why has our country deterred from that? Why should the federal government come first? Did the Confederacy, not that I support their actions, foresee what the federal government would become? Did the Confederacy actually have the right idea, which would be the want/continuation of states rights coming before the federal government? In my opinion, states rights should come before whatever rights the federal government may have. It is how our country was initially set up. I believe if states rights were truly coming first and had the power, we wouldn't be dealing w/ the problems we have today. I don't want to be Debbie Downer, but for the sake of this thread staying open can we keep the discussion focused on gun control/rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Unless you stop it at the manufacturing and distribution level, A whole bunch more regulations aren't going to do anything. I disagree. Will they eliminate all problems? Will passing laws cause everybody to follow them? Of course not, something along those lines isn't possible. But to say it will do nothing? Not everybody follows the speed limit, but some do. Not everybody avoids illegal drugs, but some do. Murders, rapes, all still happen with laws against them. The point of laws isn't to eliminate crime, it's to deter those who can be deterred. I cannot agree more. People either forget or have not learned about the articles of confederation. When the articles of confederation was established, the federal government had little control. Almost to the extent of a state of anarchy. Our founding fathers decided a more structured, federal government needed to be established. This was established w/ the writing of the Constitution. A problem w/ our Constitution has been the continuing growth of federal government control. As time has passed, states have continued to lose power, control and voice. As each day, act, election, law passes, we continue to step towards a state of totalitarianism. And this bothers me greatly. Our country was founded under the idea of states first. Why has our country deterred from that? Why should the federal government come first? Did the Confederacy, not that I support their actions, foresee what the federal government would become? Did the Confederacy actually have the right idea, which would be the want/continuation of states rights coming before the federal government? In my opinion, states rights should come before whatever rights the federal government may have. It is how our country was initially set up. I believe if states rights were truly coming first and had the power, we wouldn't be dealing w/ the problems we have today. Yes, the Articles of Confederation was such a wonderful system :rolleyes: And if states had more power, we may not have the same problems we'd have today. We'd have a whole other set of problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I disagree. Will they eliminate all problems? Will passing laws cause everybody to follow them? Of course not, something along those lines isn't possible. But to say it will do nothing? Not everybody follows the speed limit, but some do. Not everybody avoids illegal drugs, but some do. Murders, rapes, all still happen with laws against them. The point of laws isn't to eliminate crime, it's to deter those who can be deterred. Deterrence is such a panacea though. Those who can be deterred are the type that don't even need the regulation. Deterrence is the theory that brought us the death penalty, Scared Straight, and mandatory minimum sentencing; things that have effectively deterred....no one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueBlueGED Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Deterrence is such a panacea though. Those who can be deterred are the type that don't even need the regulation. Deterrence is the theory that brought us the death penalty, Scared Straight, and mandatory minimum sentencing; things that have effectively deterred....no one. Right, it doesn't always work. But it also doesn't never work (yes, I'm awesome and used a double negative). I mean hey, it has prevented nuclear war since WWII :P No matter what you do, you can't legislate against crazy. I get that. This guy was going to go on a rampage whether there were gun laws or not. But if assault weapons were significantly harder to get, maybe he wouldn't have shot 71 people...maybe he'd have only gotten 30. Perfect? Nope. Better? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 Right, it doesn't always work. But it also doesn't never work (yes, I'm awesome and used a double negative). I mean hey, it has prevented nuclear war since WWII :P No matter what you do, you can't legislate against crazy. I get that. This guy was going to go on a rampage whether there were gun laws or not. But if assault weapons were significantly harder to get, maybe he wouldn't have shot 71 people...maybe he'd have only gotten 30. Perfect? Nope. Better? Yes. And that's in line with a lot of the CJ way of thinking. If crime of a certain type is prevented only 5% more by a measure, then it is a success. If 10 less people had been shot this weekend thanks to a assault weapons ban, then that's a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I have no doubt that if they were forming the foundation of this country today, they would have gone about things differently. Thanks for bringing historical facts to the conversation regarding rifled barrels. I am am not a "gun person", obviously, I just don't understand why people feel the need to be in possession of such a killing machine. Defending yourself is one thing, how often does the need to kill large numbers of people instantly occur? When is the last time you heard a news story that contained "good thing Mr. Citizen had his automatic weapon and killed that group of people in such a short amount of time. it avoided a real tragedy?" Certainly going to need them during the Zombie Apocalypse.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weave Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I don't want to be Debbie Downer, but for the sake of this thread staying open can we keep the discussion focused on gun control/rights the tragedy that occurred at the Century 16 theater? Fixed for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sloth Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 I disagree. Will they eliminate all problems? Will passing laws cause everybody to follow them? Of course not, something along those lines isn't possible. But to say it will do nothing? Not everybody follows the speed limit, but some do. Not everybody avoids illegal drugs, but some do. Murders, rapes, all still happen with laws against them. The point of laws isn't to eliminate crime, it's to deter those who can be deterred. Yes, the Articles of Confederation was such a wonderful system :rolleyes: And if states had more power, we may not have the same problems we'd have today. We'd have a whole other set of problems. I never said I support the Articles of Confederation. I'm glad the constitution was written. The point I was making is our "founding fathers" wanted an effective federal government, but at the same time they wanted the federal government to have limited control. They attempted to do w/ this the constitution. I'll side w/ their ideas of how a government should be setup/ran. States rights always came first to our "founding fathers." Let me add this is the last post I'll make on our government on this thread. This topic was setup for the shooting that took place in Aurora. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 So..... how 'bout those victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 So..... how 'bout those victims. The problem with these types of tragedies is that we, media included, focus on the shooter and that's about it. The only victims I've heard any detail about are the hockey blogger and the gentleman who jumped in front of a bullet. No one ever cares to put a foot forward to understand the cause of these tragedies, the US has the highest per capita death by gun rate in the modernized west. It's not even close. We had a congressman get shot in the head, with multiple fatalities and nothing changed. The best way to remember the victims is to take steps to prevent another event from happening. If we dont learn from the past we are bound to repeat its errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spndnchz Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 From Jason Alexander http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht Good stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 We had a congressman get shot in the head, with multiple fatalities and nothing changed. This says more about our appetite for gun control than other singular recent event in my opinion. If this didn't galvanize Congress to act nothing will. We could also cite Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy, Kennedy, King, Reagan too. Reagan did eventually spur reaction into the Brady Bill. I dare say it will take a catastrophic attack on a government institution before the gun lobby can be deafened on Capitol Hill. One of the seldom discussed ironies of living with the 2nd amendment is the endless number of guards, X-ray machines, cameras and portals we have to endure because of 2nd amendment. People get to keep their guns but society has to spend billions to protect the population from them. What a crazy world we live in... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Crotch Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 From Jason Alexander http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht Good stuff. :thumbsup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty16 Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 The interesting part is if you dig a little you will find that the States where the most people are killed by guns per capita, are poorer, less educated, with little gun regulation. The kicker is these states ALSO tend to receive more fed tax dollar benefits than they put into the system. The govt they fear is essentially the one that keeps them economically afloat and in business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wjag Posted July 22, 2012 Report Share Posted July 22, 2012 From Jason Alexander http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht Good stuff. Couldn't have said it better. I'm going to leave this as my last comment on this topic.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.