QOD
What is so neato about owning a gun and/or shooting it?
Of all the fines levied against him, how much will Donald Trump actually pay?
Recent Comments
- BLT on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Alby on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Tacitus on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Imissscottwalkerssigns on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Imissscottwalkerssigns on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- MonteCristo on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Andrew C on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Imissscottwalkerssigns on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Factz on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- MonteCristo on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- mediawatch on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- BLT on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- MonteCristo on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Grant Brunner on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- PS on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Bamboozer on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Chris on DL Open Thread Monday, Nov. 4, 2024
- Factz on DL Open Thread: Sunday, November 3, 2024
- El Somnambulo on DL Open Thread: Sunday, November 3, 2024
- El Somnambulo on Different Strokes for Different Folks
- Dave on Different Strokes for Different Folks
The Vault
Follow Us
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
© 2024 Delaware Liberal. All rights reserved. Theme by Solostream.
Its not owning it and shooting it, its being able to hit what you aim at with it. A skill, like bowling or golf (although never could figure out the point of golf, at least with bowling, its acceptable to hang out in an airconditioned public builing and get shit-faced).
Conversely, the skill also improves not hitting what you don’t want to shoot.
Ask any kid.
I think it is human nature to be fascinated with having control over objects at a distance.
It picks up where the penis left off. Just a guess.
Doing your DeNiro impression in the mirror.
Dominique – Take a look at my blog – The blogroll on the right has several women gun bloggers. I doubt they’re compensating for penile inadequacies. They’re compensating for being smaller and weaker than men and a firearm is a force equalizer should they ever need it. It’s also a “NO” emphasized.
As for shooting. It’s a challenge, it’s very calming and peaceful. That and gun owners understand that they, not the government are ultimately responsible for their own lives and safety. The same can’t be said for most liberals who support “nanny state” policies and still believe the police can and will protect them.
I’m with Dom, sort of. Look at the sort you’re debating on the other thread — young, powerless people who consider themselves libertarians because they read Ayn Rand or Robert A. Heinlein (depending on their dorkiness level) as teen-agers and think of themselves as rugged individualists. They haven’t lived through anything yet.
By the way, lots of people think it’s fun. If shooting a regular gone doesn’t do it, they tell me, try one of these places that lets you shoot a machine gun. I dunno, but I think the American majority likes being able, somewhere in the back of their minds, the option of going out with a blaze of glory by shooting all their enemies. That fantasy is an American birthright.
It is a comfort to know that if your government were ever to take up arms against ua for unjust reasons, we could join a just cause militia and defend the human rights of your society, weapon in hand.
I think that is why our founding fathers put it in the constitution. They put their lives on the line for us to have our freedom, including the foresight to build safeguards against unexpected future problems and tyranny.
Knowing that you could take arms against a bad government using a gun you legally owned for years, is pretty neato.
i’m sure my 9mm is going to ward off big brother….
“That and gun owners understand that they, not the government are ultimately responsible for their own lives and safety.”
No macho, penile-extending fantasies there. Just one man, alone with his gun, against a hostile world that wants to rape his wife and kill his children, or vice versa.
“The same can’t be said for most liberals who support “nanny state” policies and still believe the police can and will protect them.”
Wow, look at that straw man burn!
They own with the hope of someday actually having to use it. Why else?
My bet is when that day comes, CJO, they won’t pull the trigger.
That’s what makes violent crime so, well… violent. We don’t understand the mindset behind the bad guy who’s willing to kill in cold blood. It’s why most people view it as abhorrent.
duh, its to kill them commie bastards
Hey Al and a few others
Look up the term psychology term “projection.”
DTB – One pistol won’t, but the knowledge that there are 120 million + armed citizens is a strong deterrent against tyranny. That’s exactly why the 2A exists, and why every tyrant/dictator/mass murderer in history has 1st disarmed the people before slaughtering them.
As far as “penile fantasies” I guess you’ll just ignore the parts of my posts you find inconvenient huh?
it’s why the 4th exists to my friend with arms
Right, and what stops the government from ignoring the rest of the BOR? Force is a wonderful deterrent and has been throughout all of human history.
What about the 3rd Amendment? If the gov. decided to quarter soldiers in our homes we’d revive that right and say “No Way!” What would back that up? The threat that any solider trying to enter a civilian home without permission would be shot. The 2nd Amendment exists to ensure all the others. Do you think those dictators I mentioned above would have said “Oops, there’s a 4th Amendment that says I can’t do this” if a comparable right had existed in their countries? Of course not. Hitler would have laughed and asked the Jews “How do you plan to stop me?
The idea that mere words will stop a tyrannical, illegitimate government is profoundly naive.
Plenty of reasons, I think. Everything from self-reliance for food to a self-identity as a bad-ass wannabe….
Either way, the reasons are as various as the people that possess them.
‘My bet is when that day comes, CJO, they won’t pull the trigger.’
Actually, they will, but they’ll probably kill the family dog by accident.
Amen, Dom! Have you checked your email??? Contact me if you didn’t get my message.
I gotta agree with VC – the reasons vary. I think it most comes down to the Hunter Thompson argument – he just liked to blow shit up. Why do people like fireworks?
The 2nd amendment position is fine I guess, the idea that you’re somehow protecting yourself from tyranny is hilarious though, I have to say. When the First armored division rolls up your driveway or the 82nd Airborne drop into you back yard, I have news for you. Whatever you got ain’t enough.
Ask the dudes at Waco or Ruby Ridge.
You can’t,they’re dead.
Why do I have this image in my head of Pandora and Dominique as Thelma and Louise, shooting tin cans in the desert?
Down here in Sussex County there is a gun shop who uses ad’s by a women who describes a ladies guy as pink and cute. Go figure
Some of the Weaver family survived Ruby Ridge, I think. One of you can check me but I remember they won a wrongful death lawsuit or something.
You may be correct.
“The 2nd amendment position is fine I guess, the idea that you’re somehow protecting yourself from tyranny is hilarious though, I have to say. When the First armored division rolls up your driveway or the 82nd Airborne drop into you back yard, I have news for you. Whatever you got ain’t enough.”
As I’ve said before It’s more of a deterrent than anything else. That said, your position is comical. The British had the most advanced military IN THE WORLD and they were beaten by a bunch of colonists with privately owned arms (cannons and other artillery were also privately owned BTW)
Of course armed rebellion is something I hope never comes to fruition. If it does at some point in the distant future I think you’re seriously underestimating the resolve of people who are fighting for independence and overestimating the abilities of the U.S. military.
When the First armored division rolls up your driveway or the 82nd Airborne drop into you back yard, I have news for you. Whatever you got ain’t enough.
You don’t have to DEFEAT the authorities to effectively use the Second Amendment to deter tyranny. You just need to raise the stakes and make it more costly for them to mount an illegal or excessive attack. See Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.
The polygamists in Texas were damn lucky the court gave them back their kids; otherwise they might have regretted their peaceful cooperation.
I really loved that movie – two smart, tough women on the run and Brad Pitt’s big-screen debut (replete with six-pack abs). Mmm mmm.
Here’s the deal, boys. Physically speaking, women are obviously weaker than men, so it would stand to reason that we would be most concerned with defending ourselves against attackers. Yet, by and large, women are not fighting the good fight for gun rights (save the ones on the gun sites…we all know they’re an anomaly). Why do you think that is? My guess is it has something to do with the fact that we’re not bogged down with penis brain. That and we tend to be more inclined to nurture than to destroy. Either way, I’d rather live unarmed in a world where I face a one in a million chance of being attacked than live in a world where everyone walks around with a gun. Something tells me I have a better chance of getting hurt in Gunworld.
Dominique – evidence based upon 30 years of expanding CCW by law-abiding citizens would prove your “feelings” wrong.
Look at Illinois where no one can *legally* carry a gun. Then look at Vermont where anyone can with no permit required. Violent crime rates are MUCH lower in Vermont, even though anyone who owns a gun can carry it with virtually no restrictions.
Personally I’d rather BE safer than “feel” safer. Facts bear out that there’s much more crime in areas with more gun control.
I went to the NRA convention this year. Thousands of people in one place, and the huge majority of them were armed. There wasn’t a single incident of any kind, much less a gun-related incident.
Oh, and gun owners aren’t “destroying” anything. We ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is a small subset of violent young men, predominantly blacks, who are killing and robbing eachother in the inner cities. What we have is a cultural problem in those areas, NOT a gun problem.
That’s a silly analogy. How many big urban areas are there in Vermont? What’s the poverty level compared to Illinois?
I’m not trying to pry a gun out of anyone’s cold, dead hand. I don’t care if you own 75 of them. I just think it’s silly to think you need one to defend yourself, that’s all. I also think it’s naive of anyone to think that a world where everyone carries a gun would be safer. Didn’t you see A Christmas Story??? 🙂
Yes, and there are no other mitigating factors. The only difference between VT and IL is the gun laws. You win, Mike.
so people living in urban areas, who are predominantly poor minorities, should be denied civil rights? That’s quite the bigoted argument.
In fact, I seem to remember a time when we denied the black community their civil rights. It was wrong then and it’s still wrong now. I guess you have no problem continuing to deprive them of their rights?
it’s why the 4th exists to my friend with arms
and that took a big hit this weak thank you US Congress and GW
Andy – Please read post # 16.
If you honestly want to know, come with me and my friends to the range some time this summer.
I’ve taught a lot of my liberal friends how to shoot, – we have the right firearms to teach people on, because we live up to reasonable safety standards we have never come anywhere close to having an accident, we don’t talk politics while we’re there, we don’t spend too long shooting and at the end of the day everyone said they were glad they came.
If for nothing else, come to learn about all those terms people talk about legislating. There is a lot of talk about assault weapons and Saturday Specials – hold one in your hand and know what your talking about then next time a law comes up. I believe the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was flawed in part because the legislators that wrote it had never actually seen one before.
There are a few good local ranges, it will cost 5-10 dollars to get in, you do not need any type of license or permit and I have a couple extra sets of eye and ear protection. If you decide you don’t want to shoot when we get there thats fine. Some of the firearms we have are just filled with history, we’ll show you a bit about them and how they differ.
This is invitation stands to anyone who is over 18, open-minded and will agree to follow safety regulations.
BTW, Mike W. – where do you shoot?
‘so people living in urban areas, who are predominantly poor minorities, should be denied civil rights? That’s quite the bigoted argument.’
Is that a joke? I was stating the obvious – that there’s a higher crime rate in urban areas so the two states are hardly a fair comparison.
Nope, not a joke. You’re advocating denying a civil right to people in the inner cities solely because of higher crime rates. That is bigoted and racist.
Tom. I shoot at Ommelanden.
and you should add that your invite is not open to those prohibited from possessing firearms.
Yeah, that’s right. Strip them of their civil rights.
You know as well as I do that I was simply stating that there are more urban areas in IL than in VT, so it’s not fair to compare the two states in terms of gun violence statistics as you did in #29. Sheesh. Try to keep up.
VT and Il are being compared in this thread. It’s time to stop Mike…really…
I do not know. I am a Quaker. If someone bothers me, I go somewhere else.
Having come in very very late to this thread (I was out of town), my only observations are these:
1) Al, you obviously have never read early Robert Heinlein closely or at all–he began his career as a “world state” liberal, worked in fact for Upton Sinclair’s CA gov campaign, and advocated the right of the government (assuming it had the technology) to psychologically “adjust” people with violent tendencies. He wrote exactly two pieces of work that could be properly described as libertarian, and wrote several (The Cat Who Walks Through Walls stands out) the featured libertarian dystopias. That’s just my own geeky aside.
2) The general trend of this thread seems to be that wanting to own a gun and blow shit away or defend yourself doesn’t make much sense to a lot of people, so that opinion necessarily trumps the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This belief system is far more of an eastern liberal fetish; even liberals in the northwest and southwest are pretty pro-gun ownership.
But the scariest part for me is that if you can lampoon it, then you can attack the right to keep and bear arms by essentially saying, “Only freeks, geeks (but not liberalgeeks), and crazies want to own handguns, so we should do away with them for the good of society.”
That is an inherently dangerous argument.
The 82nd Airborne at your door argument is one of those straw men that Al keeps complaining about. The argument is the equivalent of saying I shouldn’t bother locking my hotel room door because a professional thief or a man with size 14 boots can get inside in a heartbeat anyway.
the arguement that a gun somehow prevents tyrany steve is the Straw man here
What is so neato about owning a computer and/or shooting your virtual mouth off?
Why, I wonder, do so many of our friends on the left find it so easy to mock a constitutional right they might not be inclined to exercise — though I would hold that choosing not to own a gun is also a protected part of the Second Amendment — yet so deadly, earnestly, honestly serious about the rights they choose to exercise more frequently?
Dana – I pointed out the 3rd amendment but apparently they prefer to ignore reasoned arguments and remain willfully ignorant.
dv
OK explain exactly how it is a straw man.
Two counters
1) It wasn’t a straw man in 1787; and there have been any number of occasions in which the right of citizens to bear arms have saved people from governmental tyranny; ask African-Americans in Tenn, Ky, Fl, Ga, Al, and even Delaware during the period between 1900 and the final Federal anti-lynching laws. Modern scholarship has shown a direct link between lynchings and the effectiveness of local governments in confiscating firearms from rural black families.
There is also the well-documented case in 1946 of WW2 veterans taking up arms in a central Kentucky town against a local sheriff who illegally attempted to confiscate real property, ballot boxes, and weapons from local citizens. The veterans sought all the usual relief from state and local government, got nothing, formed a local militia to create a standoff and got the sheriff removed.
2) Anybody can declare an argument to be a straw man (thank you Dom for noticing that); somehow the mere assertion has weight. Considerable evidence from history–both world and American–suggests otherwise, whether you happen to like it or not.
I grew up with guns, own one right now, and will likely own more in my lifetime. I am a liberal, and I live under no delusions that I am either going to protect myself, my family, or my property with any gun that I will own. I guess that makes me the gun owner of the HST variety, i just like to blow things up, though I like to think that the late great doctor fancied himself protecting his life, family and property, it may have not been protecting them from anything that us mere mortals can understand, but i sleep well knowing that his heavily armed spirit is wondering out there, ready to fuck shit up if needed.
Maybe its because i grew up on the left coast, but i dont see anything wrong with being a liberal and owning a gun or two. I am not going to stand in line to join the NRA, but i am not going to readily give up my 12 gauge either. I don’t kill things, i just shoot at little pieces of round clay flying through the air. I get up early on Saturday mornings, drive down to New Castle to Ommelanden, blast away at the little buggers for a a few hundred rounds, then go home and do all the shit i need to do every weekend. It is a nice, relaxing, and mind clearing way to start the weekend. You can only really concentrate on one thing when you are shooting, all that other crap falls away. Its a way to meditate, and at the same time exact a little satisfaction.
As for the women thing, my wife has no interest in my fun, probably better that way, but last summer I helped teach a whole group of liberal women (many of whom DHB/DTB has spent time courting at Drinking Liberally events) the joy of blowing one of those little orange disks out of the sky. They were immensely satisfied with the whole thing.
i”m not mocking the “right to own a gun” dana, I am however mocking the people that cling to it so desperately…sorry if I offended you
you referenced somethin6g in 1787? are you kidding me? sure, quite the comparison to 2008
Referencing 1787 is referencing the original thought behind the amendment
Right, I must be crazy to think that the Constitutional Convention had anything to do with it…
Oh but wait it was all the people here decrying the destruction of the 4th Amendment….
^ right, because the AMERICAN REVOLUTION and Constitutional Convention aren’t relevant to AMERICA. What could be more relevant?
The Constitution is antiquated as well, and since it’s not 1787 we should just ignore it. right?
You’ve got to be kidding me.
Also, explain to me how using the 1st Amendment to voice my support for the 2nd is “clinging?” You have one thing right about “clinging” though. The term implies that someone is trying to take away that which is being clinged to, and that is most certainly true. McCain is no saint on 2A issues but Obama would like nothing better than to eradicate gun ownership in this country. His record bears this out.
God, what a bunch of clinging whiners! 🙂 Honestly, boys, if one more of you cite the weaker sex in your blow crap up arguments I might actually buy a gun. Look, I have no problem with your toys, but please stop pretending that you’re arming yourself for a revolution. Just say, I like my guns. Fine with me.
For the record… if it ever comes down to you protecting yourself – or God forbid a “little women” – against a bad guy, my money is on the bad guy. No offense.
What’s the problem with acknowledging that women are smaller and have less upper body strength than most men, which puts them at a disadvantage in a defensive situation?
It’s true and not one bit offensive.
Pandora – whether you like it or not defense of tyranny is the stated purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
Oh and quite a few women I know are great shots with a pistol. Much better than I am. They can take care of themselves and they carry the right tool for self-defense. A firearm.
Actually, Mike, as a woman I’ll decide what’s offensive, and your “women are the fairer sex” bit is wearing thin. I’ll forgive you since I’ll bet you’re not even thirty and therefore do not know of what you speak. So here’s some advice… drop the poor, defenseless, little women crap.
You need your gun to feel safe? Fine. Stop projecting and justifying your phobia onto the rest of us.
We carry the right tools…we just call them ‘husbands’. 🙂
Here’s the thing, Libs. Either you defend the Constitution or you don’t. You can’t really crow about The Founding Fathers this and The Founding Fathers that then pick and choose which parts to defend.
I’m all for the Second Amendment. Own all the guns you want. Shoot all the little clay thingies and beer cans you want. Go to the shooting range every day. Hunt innocent animals (a bit cruel for me and completely unnecessary what with an Acme on every corner, but whatever gets your rocks off). Just don’t pretend that your primary goal is self defense because a) you’re not really going to find yourself in that position, and b) if you did, you’d be too busy shitting your pants to actually load your gun and shoot an intruder. It’s ok to just admit, like good ol’ Mike R, that you just like to blow things up.
I’m totally freaking liberal and I own guns, but not to protect myself and my family. We have guns for hunting. They are locked in the gun safe, and I am the only one who knows where the keys are kept. At least I think I know where I hid the key the last time.
The gun lobby and the “guns for everyone makes us safe” crowd use the same tired arguments. All the right amendments, all the right ideals, all the data and comparisons. What is wrong with me–I am still not convinced.
I do not fear guns. I do fear all of you people running around with guns and touting them as the saving grace for all.
One night I got home really late from the University, the rest of my family was away and I was watching the house. The police were looking for an escaped convict through my neighborhood. When I got home the pets were pretty freaked out and I know my sisters often leave widows unlocked.
I can not tell you how thankful I was to own a gun that night.
Depending on your definition of safe I don’t need a gun to be safe, but you can’t deny that having a gun makes me safer. I will probably never ever ever ever have to protect my family from anything, but if I do you can’t deny that having a gun will make it easier.
Dominique – have you ever met me? What makes you think I am incapable of using a firearm in a life-threatening situation? Do you really want me to dig up the stories of thousands of American citizens who use firearms to keep their families safe every year? If I bring you a couple stories of little old ladies wielding 12 gauges and revolvers to fend off intruders will you folks accept that guns can help to keep a person safe?
Self-defense is not the primary reason I own firearms, but it is a reason. Firearms do not make me safe, but they do make me safer.
Delaware’s Wimpiest Blogger wrote:
I’d suggest that the people “who cling to it so desperately” are doing so because they see the right to keep and bear arms as threatened, in a way that freedom of speech is not.
Were we to extend the argument further, have not our friends on the left waxed wroth over the FISA bill, because they thought that someone was getting away with a warrantless wiretap, or the Bush Administration having held terrorists, overseas, and not granted them access to our federal courts?
Tom S wrote, immediately above:
In one respect, Mr S errs: to own firearms is his natural right as a free human being, a right recognized and guaranteed by our Second Amendment. He need not justify to you or to any other man why he chooses to exercise his rights, because as rights, no other man may gainsay him.
Believe what you want, but millions of people effectively defend themselves with firearms everyday, often without ever having to fire a shot.
here’s some proof
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
“Actually, Mike, as a woman I’ll decide what’s offensive, and your “women are the fairer sex” bit is wearing thin. I’ll forgive you since I’ll bet you’re not even thirty and therefore do not know of what you speak. So here’s some advice… drop the poor, defenseless, little women crap.”
WOW! Your lack of reason is shocking. I feel bad for you if you actually find something that’s a simple fact of nature “offensive”
I can’t believe you actually took my post to be degrading towards women. It was in fact complementary.
Not degrading, Mike, patronizing. You keep saying that women “need” a gun because they are weaker. You use this phrase to justify your position on guns. I’ve said several times that if you want to own a gun – fine. But is that really what you’re advocating? Sounds to me you think everyone should own a gun… and we all would if we only understood the amount of danger we’re in.
i’ll protect your Pan…grrrr
I feel safer already!
‘Do you really want me to dig up the stories of thousands of American citizens who use firearms to keep their families safe every year?’
Please do. While you’re at it, why don’t you google the tens of thousands of American citizens who accidentally shoot loved ones and innocent bystanders. I’ll get the party started for you. These happened just within THE PAST TWO WEEKS…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,377861,00.html
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/168060
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/27/2287831.htm
http://www.twincities.com/news/ci_9839622?source=rss
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-joliet-boy-dead_27jun27,0,3770279.story
See if you can find me five stories of people saving their families with guns over the same time frame.
‘I do not know. I am a Quaker. If someone bothers me, I go somewhere else.’
That made me giggle. 🙂
Dominique – In the 2nd story linked the store owner shot himself and survived, what you neglect to notice is that he was able to shoot and kill the armed robber. Good for him.
The Chicago link – You don’t leave a loaded gun lying around for a 3 year old to get a hold of.
That is not an “accident” It is criminal negligence plain and simple. In DE the homeowner would be charged with a crime.
-Twin Cities Link – The guy was pulled over for DUI, meaning he was committing several crimes. Using stories citing criminal misuse of guns doesn’t bolster your argument. They’re criminals, who, by definition, break the law.
Not a single story you posted was an “accidental” shooting. They were all either criminal or grossly negligent. There are 120+ million gun owners in this country. A few thousand committing crimes and or having “accidents” is statistically insignificant, especially since the majority of those instances are criminals with illegally possessed guns.
I’m sure I posted this before, but I’ll do it again.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Also, keep in mind the media is anti-gun and often does not report stories where a gun is used in self-defense. Also in the large majority of defensive gun use there are no shots fired. Such stories are not at all sensational and thus aren’t picked up in the media.
How many of those people are law-abiding citizens with a CCW permit like myself?
“I’ve said several times that if you want to own a gun – fine. But is that really what you’re advocating? Sounds to me you think everyone should own a gun… and we all would if we only understood the amount of danger we’re in.”
Everyone should be FREE TO CHOOSE and they should not be restricted in the type of gun they can own, nor the manner and places in which they can carry it. Freedom of choice is the essence of liberty and of a free society.
OK, so the guy shot and killed the robber. Good for him, but he also hurt himself. Still, we’ll remove him from the list.
You can’t discount the rest of the stories because the shooters were behaving irresponsibly or criminally when you’re advocating gun ownership with little to no restrictions.
‘Also, keep in mind the media is anti-gun and often does not report stories where a gun is used in self-defense.’
That’s just nonsense (or is it a logical fallacy or a red herring or a strawman…help me with the jargon, dorky bloggers!). The media LOVES to report stories of people being attacked in their homes or businesses and saving themselves. It feeds into the fear factor that generates ad revenue.
So, I’ve given you one (kind of) with the store owner. Please provide me with three more stories that happened in the past two weeks. This is your mission, should you decide to accept.
Here are a few more (again, just within the past couple of weeks)…
http://www.myfoxgulfcoast.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=6922544&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
http://www.news4jax.com/news/16806595/detail.html
http://www.wcpo.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=d15ee2aa-9135-4388-9457-7afb3d61fa0a
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008018839_webshotface26m.html
http://www.fox16.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=85481e92-a595-4017-a083-64562197762e
The media doesn’t report the millions of defensive uses of guns that are “non-stories” – the ones where no shots are fired.
Click on the link in my post! Jeez!
Also, my point remains that the “accidents” you posted are not accidents. They’re not the fault of the gun, they’re the fault of negligent and irresponsible people.
And your point is? people misuse guns. What does that have to do with me, or the other 99.99% of gun owners who DIDN’T commit a crime or have an “accident” with their weapon in the past week?
I can pull up just as many stories involving cars and alcohol. Should we heavily restrict alcohol? cars? Is anyone who drinks occasionally and owns a car an accident waiting to happen? Of course not. We blame the actor for his actions not some inanimate object. Why do so many of you continue claim that all the “icky” guns are the problem?
Hell. I have the equipment required to commit rape. That doesn’t mean I’m a rapist or potential rapist You have the equipment to be a prostitute. It doesn’t make you a prostitute or potential prostitute. A gun is the same. I have the ability to hurt someone with my weapon but it’s only a tool. Bad people use guns to harm others, good people (the majority of gun-owners) do not.
I have the equipment to libel and slander someone, but I don’t hear you advocating we cut out peoples tongues to prevent misuse of their free speech rights
Mike, I clicked on your link, and was disturbed by the second one, where a copper thief was shot dead while on the roof of a business. Was there really danger from this guy? He confronted the man, then the man was shot in the torso and died before paramedics arrived.
I am not advocating a gun-free society, but doesn’t an example like this one point at some of the complaints that people have with gun ownership? Keep in mind that almost half of the population has below-average intelligence.
And again, did you READ the links you posted. Several of those were not only gross negligence, but they were people who couldn’t even legally own a gun.
The one guy was a drug dealer, a felon.
Liberalgeek – No. The man stealing someone else’s property put himself in that situation. Don’t try to steal copper from someones home and you wouldn’t be in a position to be shot by the property owner.
In other words “stop breaking the law asshole!”
Criminal actions have consequences.
So Mike, would you support registration of all guns? All cars are registered. How about a database of guns and the results of a ballistics test? How about making gun owners responsible for controlling their guns so that we don’t end up with “stolen guns” ending up in the hands of these felons?
I sense that there is actually some common ground here, but that the extremists on both sides get in the way of real debate on steps that can be taken.
Mike –
I think you may be hyper-focusing on this one issue. No one on this board is advocating stripping you of your precious guns. We’re simply answering your cockamamie claim that the world would somehow be safer if more people walked around with guns.
We get it. You love guns. Sheesh.
So the punishment fit the crime? It seems to me that the shooting of an unarmed man, thief or not, is excessive. If someone cuts me off in traffic with an illegal maneuver, may I shoot him in self defense? How about a neighbor that repeatedly allows his dog to crap in my yard… Where is the the line for you?
“So Mike, would you support registration of all guns? All cars are registered. How about a database of guns and the results of a ballistics test? How about making gun owners responsible for controlling their guns so that we don’t end up with “stolen guns” ending up in the hands of these felons?”
Except those proposals aren’t “common-sense”
Registration has lead to confiscation in pretty much every country that’s implemented it (except Canada, they scrapped their program after realizing it was impossible to implement and was costing them tens of billions.) Who’s going to voluntarily register their weapons. The gangbanger who’s prohibited from owning one in the 1st place? Hell no. People would be committing crimes with weapons not in the database.
Maryland has a “ballistics” database. They require any new gun bought to be entered into such a database. It has not solved one crime. Not to mention the ballistic “mark” changes as the gun wears, and would be totally different if an owner replaced his/her barrel. Do you really think the guy who bought an illegal pistol on the corner is going to register that gun to be included in the database.
Making gun-owners responsible for stolen guns and requiring them to report it under penalty of law. Wonderful. Criminalize me, the victim, when my house is burglarized and some asshole criminal steals my property. How about locking up the criminals instead of blaming and prosecuting the victim?
Would you be OK with a law that says you must report your car stolen within 24 hours or face prosecution?
Also, this brings up a 5th Amendment issue. Such a law specifically targets the law-abiding and ONLY the law-abiding. If you are a “person prohibited” and your gun is stolen such a law requires you to report it stolen. You are compelled by law to report the theft, but if you do so you’re incriminating yourself of a felony.
“We’re simply answering your cockamamie claim that the world would somehow be safer if more people walked around with guns. ”
And I’m simply answering your emotional appeals and blatant misrepresentations with facts and logic.
Truthfully, the man who shot the copper thief may be in trouble for his actions. It depends on the circumstances surrounding the incident.
If the bad guy was just peacefully stealing copper and the mean old shop owner went up there and killed him, then the shop owner was in the wrong.
If, however the thief made threatening gestures, (say brandishing one of the tools necessary for the peaceful removal of copper) then the mean old shop owner/capitolist pig/small penised maniac had every right to defend himself.
“No one on this board is advocating stripping you of your precious guns. ”
Dom
This is where the argument gets disingenuous. Would our commenters care to go on record that they would not ever support the general confiscation of handguns in the US?
Put up or shut up.
Getting back to the original question.
How many of you have actual shot a gun before? You can’t really answer the question unless you have.
Steve – they at least tacitly support it, since they support politicians (Obama, Biden) who are on record supporting civilian disarmament and exhibiting complete contempt for the right to keep & bear arms.
I will take that vow. And I have shot several guns.
Mike you are on record as saying that some of the problems with Dom’s examples was irresponsible gun owners. Shouldn’t irresponsibility, like say having 50 guns stolen of the course of a year, be punished?
“We’re simply answering your cockamamie claim that the world would somehow be safer if more people walked around with guns. ”
“answering” implies that you’re actually reading what I’m saying and offering logical counterpoints, which you most certainly are not.
Irresponsibility is almost always punished, either criminally, in civil suit, or lost opportunity. The fact that recklessly irresponsble people is exist is not a firm ground for taking away the rights of all.
Dis – the issue is defining what is irresponsible, IMHO.
“Mike you are on record as saying that some of the problems with Dom’s examples was irresponsible gun owners. Shouldn’t irresponsibility, like say having 50 guns stolen of the course of a year, be punished?”
So if I have 50 guns in my safe and it gets stolen I should be punished? Why? What if my car keeps getting broken into?
There’s a difference between someone having his property stolen and someone dealing guns illegally out of his house and then claiming they were “stolen.” If that were the case, well that’s what police investigations are for.
Should someone who’s store is robbed several times in a year be punished? Obviously he must me doing something that makes these poor criminals want to rob him… It can’t possibly be the fault of the poor, misunderstood robber.
“Irresponsibility is almost always punished, either criminally, in civil suit, or lost opportunity. The fact that recklessly irresponsble people is exist is not a firm ground for taking away the rights of all.”
Yup, the irresponsibility of some is not reason to place innumerable a priori restrictions on my rights. For example (although driving isn’t a right) We don’t pass a law banning all high powered sports cars just because teenagers who drive them frequently get into serious accidents.
I am concerned with the gun dealer that buys guns and has them “stolen” regularly. And you know what I’m talking about. Pretending that I am talking about victims is a BS argument.
If a drug store is broken into, they have to make sure their narcotics are secured. This doesn’t keep them from dispensing the drugs when they are truly needed, but it keeps them safe from common criminals.
So the question is, how would you suggest we solve that problem? Should guns have to be insured, so that insurance companies force compliance? This seems like something that you should have a reasonable answer for.
Liberal Geek – You just jumped from gun owners to Federally Licensed Dealers. The 2 are completely different. You never said a damn thing about dealers and we had not been discussing that. FFL’s have VERY strict regulations they must follow, and they have to account for all of their weapons. If their weapons continually go “missing” they get a visit from the Fed’s very quickly.
Also, police departments sometimes have large quantities of guns stolen and they aren’t charged criminally.
My answer is this. The fact that sometimes guns are stolen and used in crimes isn’t my problem. It has no bearing whatsoever on my rights and is not a reason for them to be infringed upon.
Sorry, I should have put quotes around “gun dealers” because I am not actually talking about legal gun dealers. I am talking about people that legally buy large quantities of guns (how many do you need, anyway) and then if one ends up being used in a crime… “Oh, that gun was stolen”
I would argue that you are indeed responsible for reporting if your legal gun was stolen. I would gander a guess that the vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals, were originally bought by someone legally. Legitimate thefts are fine, but a pattern of stolen guns should send up flags.
“I would argue that you are indeed responsible for reporting if your legal gun was stolen. I would gander a guess that the vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals, were originally bought by someone legally. Legitimate thefts are fine, but a pattern of stolen guns should send up flags”
I would guess that the majority of perscription drugs in the hands of criminals were originally legally manufactured and sold. Who’s fault is it that they’re abused and sold on the black market. Certainly not the pharmaceutical companies, pharmacies, or the millions of patients who are perscribed the drugs.
That’s what police investigations are for. And trust me they do investigate straw purchasers. Am I morally reponsible for reporting it stolen? Yes I think I am, but I should not be criminally responsible should I fail to do so within an “acceptable” time frame.
As far as “how many do you need anyway” – How many cars do you need? Do you really “need” that sports car or SUV? After all it burns alot of gas and is bad for “global warming.”.. How much food? How many televisions? I do not condone regulation of the right to personal property based on “need.” Do you really want government going down that road?
Liberty involves risk. One risk is the misuse of those liberties. One of the great things about America is that we defer to those liberties in spite of the risk of misuse. We punish the misuse after the fact rather than broadly restricting rights a priori because they “might” be misused.
I mean, we could jail far more criminals if we got rid of those pesky 4th and 5th Amendments….. And do you really “need” 1st Amendment protection applied to the internet, since you have various other mediums you can use?
Steve, I’ll take that pledge as well. I’m not for disarming everyone, but could we at least have a little common sense when it comes to them? Isn’t there something between: guns should allowed everywhere and guns should be allowed nowhere, or everyone can have a gun and no one can have a gun. (And before anyone cites the obvious exceptions to my statement, I’m well aware of them and am simply making a broad point.)
Gun violence is an embarrassment in this country. My friends from other countries tell me that before they travel to the Middle East and the US they are given the same warnings concerning their safety. WTF?
Pandora – I’ve seen what “common-sense” gun laws look like. Common-sense was nowhere to be found when those laws were enacted.
“Isn’t there something between: guns should allowed everywhere and guns should be allowed nowhere, or everyone can have a gun and no one can have a gun. ”
Isn’t there something between: Blacks should be allowed everywhere and blacks should be allowed nowhere?”
Why not defer to my rights? Unless the government can show good cause (via due process) why a certain individual should not be allowed to own and carry a weapon that person should be allowed to do so. (And if he’s not fit to carry a weapon he’s not fit to co-exist in a free society with others. In other words, he should be in jail or a mental hospital.) My rights exist unrestricted unless they directly infringe upon the rights of others.
What gets me is most of the gun violence isn’t coming from lawful gun owners. It comes from druggies and gang bangers.
There are tens of millions of law abiding gun owners in the US. Why, then aren’t there tens of millions of gun deaths every year? Why haven’t gun owners “weeded themselves out”, so to speak.
Because gun owners who abide by the law tend to abide by all laws. And, when gun control laws are proposed, they only impact the law abiding gun owners. The druggies and gang bangers (who aren’t law abiding) ignore gun control and continue on their merry way, killing each other at an alarming rate.
Gun violence isn’t what is embarrassing this country, it’s the lack of criminal incarceration.
For the sake of my own sanity, I am going to go ahead and ignore the comments before mine, and address the original question:
First, I purchased my first pistol because I was in the military, and decided I needed more pratice with the device since I was going to be carrying it on a daily basis. Fair enough.
However, in college, I participated in my school’s air rifle team, and found that sport required a remarkable degree of focus, attention to detail, fine motor control, and patience, and I thoroughly enjoyed how all of those elements fit together, melded, and resulted in a positive outcome when yielded properly. Sure, putting a little hole in a piece of paper is not exactly the biggest reward of anything, but it is still something.
Once I started shooting my pistol regularly, I found those same elements came to play in just about every shooting discipline, and those boil down to the second reason for my owning firearms. No other martial arts is quite like them, and no other hobby I have found does quite the same thing for me. And, yes, the only thing I have shot thus far in my life is paper, and a single volley of clay pigeons.
Third, especially now that I am married, I continue to shoot to practice for the very soon day when I will live in a state that will allow me to legally carry a firearm for the defense of myself and my wife. Unfortunately, Kalifornistan is a “may issue” state, and unless you are rich, famous, or have donated to the Sheriff, getting a license in San Diego, where I used to live, is basically impossible. However, in TN, I will be able to procure a license without too much difficulty. Why do I feel the need to protect myself? Because I am an adult, responsible, accountable human being, and I understand that my life is no one else’s problem or responsibility – after all, the police have no requirement to protect or defend me or mine, just the society as a whole. Because I am not a big man, and I understand that a firearm provides a playing-field levelling influence. Because I know criminals are already armed themselves, and while choosing to go armed guarantees nothing, choosing to go unarmed guarantees victimhood. Because it is my right to defend myself… guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, and granted to me simply by being human.
In addition to the pistol I own, I also have a very shiny rifle, which brings me to my fourth and fifth reasons. This country was founded and initially protected by common, average men who could plug man-sized targets at ranges exceeding 100, 200, and sometimes even 400 yards with what were common, every-day rifles. Being an occasional student of history as I am, I see no reason to break with tradition. While many, many people try to point this reasoning out as a fallacy (which it is far from being), the Founding Fathers did, in fact, write the Second Amendment partially to be a check against tyrannical and overbearing governments. I guess their prognostication skills were better than some might give them credit for.
The fifth reason is a perverse one, and I will grant that right up front. Kalifornistan has an irrational fear of firearms, much like many of the commenters on this post. This fear extends to the point where they have outright banned certain firearms for purely cosmetic reasons… and while this ban is actually amusingly easy to legally work around, I chose a different path. Kalifornistan chose to effectively ban the AR-15 platform, more or less… So I chose to purchase a platform that shoots heavier bullets, at higher speeds, farther. Just goes to prove how useful the Kalifornistan “Assault Weapon” Ban is, I suppose.
So there you go – I certainly owe you no explanations for my ownership of firearms, but since you might be honestly curious, I figure I can share for the sake of education. Additionally, if you have not shot one before, and, at some point, find yourself in TN, drop me a line and we will see what we can work out.
Despite the ability to cut any argument I can make to shreds, I would like to go on record, as a gun owner, that I do not think there is a place in a civil society for any and all types of guns. Guns should serve a purpose other then just killing people, and guns that serve no other purpose, mainly assault weapons and machine guns, have no place in the hands of the general public. I have shot a number of automatic weapons and think it is great fun, but they serve no real purpose and fun isn’t a good enough reason to allow tools like that into a world where they can easily be stolen, illegally purchased, whatever, and used to terrorize the population.
We don’t need a ban on all weapons,but we also don’t need any and all weapons readily available to anyone that has the money or inclination to obtain them. the comparison with cars, that has been used a few times here is actually a good one. not just any car is legal on the road. there are some that for one reason or another have been determined to not be street legal and thus are restricted to special people in special places. I don’t have a problem with that.
So get a pistol to protect your family, a rifle/shotgun to hunt or target shoot, and be happy with those freedoms, but asking to be given a tool designed only to kill large numbers of people is more then anyone could realistically attribute as a right the founding fathers sought to protect.
“not just any car is legal on the road. there are some that for one reason or another have been determined to not be street legal and thus are restricted to special people in special places. I don’t have a problem with that.”
And guess what? I can own a car configured any way I want (I.E. not street-legal) as long as I don’t drive it on public roads. You can’t use this argument to explain why “machine guns” and “assault weapons” should be banned from civilian ownership.
An “assault weapon” is just a politically constrtucted term with no tangible definition. What reason is there to say I can’t own one? Same with machine guns. As Heller stated, arms that are protected under the 2A are those that are “in common use.” AR-15’s are “assault weapons” but they are certainly in common use among civilians and police. Furthermore, the fully-automatic version of the AR-15 is used by the U.S. military in combat. If we’re holding true to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment then those are also protected.
Heller made it quite clear that the government cannot ban an entire class of “arms” specifically ones that are commonly used by the citizenry. The weapons covered under most “assault weapons bans” most certainly fall under that designation as “protected arms” that are “in common use.”
Even “machine guns” should qualify for 2A protection. The only reason they are not “in common use” is because of governemnt imposed restrictions imposed on them in 1934 that made them no longer “common” among citizens.
Besides, operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right.
Apples and oranges.
‘And I’m simply answering your emotional appeals and blatant misrepresentations with facts and logic.’
What emotional appeals? If anyone is being emotional it’s you – DON’T TAKE MY GUN!! YOU CAN’T HAVE MY GUN!!! IT’S MIIIIIINNNEEE!
Meanwhile, again, no one here seems to be trying to take your silly gun.
Yes, Steve, I will go on record (and I said earlier in this post) that I do not want guns confiscated. And, yes, Mike, I have shot a gun more than once in a shooting range in Smyrna (when in Rome…). It didn’t give me any great thrill. It was too loud for my liking and I wasn’t good at it. But you go ahead and shoot away, cowboy.
I just think this argument that you’re somehow focused on protecting your family is kind of funny. I envision your family sleeping comfortably while you crouch behind the sofa locked and loaded just waiting…waiting…for an intruder to burst in and Make Your Day. It just makes me giggle a little.
Then I should thank the US government for making sure machine guns are not more common.
And the argument that something should be legal just because it is in common use is complete crap. There are things that are in more common use then assault weapons and that are quite illegal, marijuana is the first that comes to mind. Justifying something that is only designed to do harm simply because lots of people have access to it already is a specious argument.
The police and army have grenades and tanks and fighter bombers and thousands of nuclear weapons, does that mean we should all have the right to own those too since they are in common use by organizations that represent the “public”?
“Meanwhile, again, no one here seems to be trying to take your silly gun.”
Right, which is why Mike R. just said no one should be allowed to own “assault weapons,” of which I have 2.
The only one I see typing “DON’T TAKE MY GUN etc.” is you. What I’ve done is explain to you WHY I hold the right to keep & bear arms in such high regard, why it’s important, and why it should be protected with no less fervor than 1st Amendment rights. I’ve discussed the historical context of the right and how it’s been infringed upon, the Constitutional importance of the right, and the nature of rights in general.
In every post I’ve made I’ve backed up my argument(s) with fact and Constitutionally based discussion. Only one of us is spouting emotionally laden diatribes and it’s not me.
“Justifying something that is only designed to do harm simply because lots of people have access to it already is a specious argument. ”
How is a machine gun or “assault weapon” Designed to do harm? It’s not. Not anymore than a single shot musket, a target pistol, or a hunting rifle. Protecting ownership of such weapons fits perfectly with the stated purpose of the Amendment, even if you think those weapons are “icky”
And I was referring to “common use” in the context of Constitutionally protected arms.
One of us is imagining things because he may be paranoid. I’ll give you a hint: it’s not me.
^ Another baseless accusation and personal attack. do you guys ever attempt to back up what you say? I’d love to hear you try.
You mean kind of like this one?…
‘one of us is spouting emotionally laden diatribes and it’s not me.’
I backed up what I was saying with several different articles. Your choosing to ignore proof doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
I’m kind of through with you arguing with yourself. We’re over 100 comments into this thread and most of it seems to be you whining about everyone wanting to take your guns away when almost everyone here agrees that you should be allowed to have as many guns as you want. It seems like you’re looking for drama and conflict where there is none. Relax.
The 2A says arms, not constitutionally protected arms as defined at some later date. They also didn’t define what common usage is. These are things that have been defined since the amendment was approved, to meet the changing needs of society and the changing nature of arms. You seem to be willing to accept the protections that you are afforded by those conventions, created long after the amendment, even though they go against the unlimited interpretation of the amendment that you have been using in your argument. If we should be able to own arms, as defined in the 2A, then bring on the home nukes! If you disagree with that, then you have acknowledged that not all arms are fit for public control, and thus need to be defined by some measure of what is useful and safe for society. The door for regulation swings open.
And don’t use my dislike of some guns to support your argument against getting rid of all guns, I have been very clear about my belief that we should have the right to own weapons that serve the purpose of protecting or feeding our families, which I hold assault weapons and machine guns do neither.
But, Mike R, you putting “assault weapons” and machine guns into the same category is intellectually dishonest, as their only similarity is in appearance.
An “assault weapon” is functionally no different than a hunting rifle. They are not more powerful or more accurate. They simply resemble military assault rifles and are scary to look at.
By moving the issue towards machine guns, grenades, nukes, etc., you are simply telling me that you have no logical argument with which to make your point.
You are using a broad interpretation of 2A, so am I. The irony is I know I am being illogical. Pointing that out still doesn’t tell me why you think some restrictions are ok and others are not.
Don’t play the semantics game with me. I don’t care what a gun looks like or the size of ammunition it uses, I care that it can carry 50 rounds in a clip and fire all of those rounds in a few seconds. That is what I find useless and dangerous.
you gun rights advocates are funny. no middle ground at all.
I still want my gunship by the way. If I need something to fight tyranny all this pussy meddling with hand guns and ASSault weapons is pointless.
Gunships baby, that’s where it’s at. Maybe an Apache too. I’m thinking some RPG as well.
Screw that, I want the Red October. Gun ships are slow and easy to target. I want to be armed with enough nukes to take over the world and be undetectable under water… tyranny here I come!
Join Blackwater, See the World!
And Kill It!
Grrrr!
I think it’s safe to interpret “arms” as.
Weapons which an individual member of a militia could bear in self-defense and in defense of the State and which can be safely stored in private homes. Even in the 1700’s there were laws regulating the storage of gunpowder by private citizens with firearms. Why? because large stores of highly explosive black powder would be dangerous to other people and other homes. (huge fire hazard) The exact same argument can be made (and it’s a very valid one) for prohibiting ownership of grenades, rocket launchers and other highly explosive “arms” and certainly nukes. No right is absolute.
No right is absolute.
Perfect, now we just have to draw the line…
Dominique, there have been many attempts to ban handguns (a class of guns). DC did it for 32 years. That ban just got overturned. So please stop the dishonesty that no one wants to take away guns. You may not want to but others have and still do.
Mike R “Assault rifles” are not full auto and do not shoot 50 rounds in seconds. They function the same as any other rifle. Just have a military look. A rifle that is full auto (machine gun) is heavily regulated. But we do have a right to buy one, just expensive and hard to find places to shoot it.
The original question what is desirable about guns? Owning or shooting? That is different for different people. Some like to feel secure that they can defend themselves. Others like to hunt and roam the outdoors and feel they are self-sufficient. Some like the satisfaction of improving the skill whether holes in targets and blasted orange disks. I prefer skeet shooting to target shooting. Others love the history and beauty and like to look and collect but rarely shoot. Collectors like doing that. Some shooters love the big bang and feeling of control. I think the machine gunners enjoy that. Kind of like setting off fireworks.
No grenades? How am I supposed to fish?
Have a good weekend, keep your hatchets sharp and your powder dry!
G REX use waterproof fireworks for fishing. It might work.
“The irony is I know I am being illogical.” That’s good, at least you recognize it.
Well done, mike w.
And to DTW: I don’t see why you shouldn’t have your Gunship – or the Apache, either.
Mike R.: I agree, the Red October would be good for you.
The authors of the Bill of Rights did not impose any named restrictions, or time limits, or technological advancement clauses in the Second Amendment.
I certainly would not argue that my preferences would justify infringement of your choices, above the authority of the U.S. Constitution.
Go for it!
Then where do we draw this line. The original argument was that the 2A said we have the right, we have established that that right is not absolute and needs to be regulated in some fashion. now how do we do it to protect the freedoms of individuals and the safety of society as a whole.
So is the concern when it becomes a hazard to your neighbors or when it is to big to carry? You could argue that any gun is a hazard to your neighbors (one of our neighbors recently had a bullet come through her wall from a domestic dispute going on next door, with a legally possessed weapon). I am sure she would argue that is a hazard to her safety. As far as being able to reasonably carry it (i will use reasonable since we and the Russians both developed human launchable tactical nukes, but they were still huge), that still includes a number of weapons that have the potential to lob massively deadly shells long distances, even not explosive ones. and for the future, we are quickly developing weapons that do not use traditional munitions, lasers are becoming more powerful and more mobile (this is a long way off, but just use your imagination), we can create bullets that go through just about anything and can carry radioactive elements (we don’t call them dirty bombs, but they are). small accurate arms could be used to spread diseases with the right chemistry (don’t get blood on your walls from shooting that intruder, just pop a little hole in them and give them some poison or virus that will kill them in seconds). Where do all of these things come into play in where that line is drawn.
Obviously the implication there is you are not seeing the illogical part of your argument. the “let anyone own any gun they choose” mentality is exactly what makes some people want to talk away all guns. Your very argument only serves to propel the issue further rather then attempt to find reasonable ground where gun owners and those concerned about the risks of guns can live together.
There are no lines, other than those that address the consequences of misuse, already clearly established in law.
Assault, murder, negligence, criminal mischief = bad.
That’s reasonable.
Specifications regarding your chosen tools are not necessary.
“So is the concern when it becomes a hazard to your neighbors or when it is to big to carry? You could argue that any gun is a hazard to your neighbors.”
The difference is that a gun is not hazardous to my neighbor without negligence and direct manipulation of my loaded weapon, not to mention wanton disregard for firearms safety.
The weapons I mentioned in my previous post pose an actual risk to other people and other homes simply by being present in the house (because they’re highly explosive)
“Specifications regarding your chosen tools are not necessary.”
Exactly. This is true in the same way that it’s not OK for the government to permit freedom of the press in newspapers and television, but not the internet because it would allow a level of dissemination of ideas that is “dangerous.”
What would happen to all of you ammo if your house caught on fire? It would just happily melt away with no risk? How would you feel if the fire fighters trying to save your house had to dodge stray bullets from your weapons? Is that not a hazard to your neighbors simply because of its presence in your home? (If you are guilty here, so am I, I am just making a point)
Also, we can’t just say
“well if you own a gun you “might” put a bullet through your neighbors wall, so we’re going to say you can’t own one.”
That’s not how the American legal system works, particularly when you’re talking about specifically enumerated, fundamental & individual Constitutional rights.
With all due respect to mike w., storage in the house isn’t the primary factor.
H.E. has its constructive uses. (That’s how the metal for coins are clad, for example).
Possession is protected – illegal consequences for misuse is not.
It is the actor, not the tool that is accountable for the consequences.
Mike R. As far as I know ammunition does not “cook off” in a fire with sufficient velocity to be deadly. It needs to be pressurized (say in the chamber of a firearm) in order to have any kind of lethal velocity.
I have lots of ammo in my house (although not nearly as much as most gun owners I’d think) If it were as dangerous as you claim it would be illegal to store in bulk in my home.
Safe storage is “reasonable” to avoid negligence.
I am not arguing that the person wielding the gun isn’t at fault for any misuse.
And didn’t we already establish that even protected, enumerated, fundimental constitutional rights need interpretation and regulation at some level.
I have to say that I highly doubt that the founding fathers would have been that general with 2A if they had any concept of the types of arms that we would be dolling out to people 200 years later, but we can leave that up to the constitutional scholars.
A ban is Unconstitutional.
I have seen shells go off in a fire, it was scary as hell, enough velocity to go through the door of a refrigerator…
i am sure that there would be a hell of a fight from the NRA if you tried to limit the amount of ammunition that people were aloud to have in their homes… And safe storage is a nice idea, but you know full well that most guns and ammo are not likely to be safely stored or they would be almost useless as a means of protection.
Dominique, You first post was very offensive. Women who enjoy shooting do not have penises. The extreme fascination may be penise envy or not. However it has nothing to do with guns. I sure you know the difference.
It show an emotional response to say penises have something to do with guns rather than a rational response.
The writers of the Constitution ensured that force could be met with force – whatever the definition at that time – or any time, for the defense of the Nation against tyranny.
Period.
So far, we have all behaved remarkably well – knowing the consequences. I say, it’s working out OK.
“I have to say that I highly doubt that the founding fathers would have been that general with 2A if they had any concept of the types of arms that we would be dolling out to people 200 years later, but we can leave that up to the constitutional scholars.”
Couldn’t you say the same about 1st Amendment rights as well as others? Surely the founders would not have recognized the rights of blacks or women, protection of pornography, or homosexual sodomy.
RAH – According to Dominique that’s not an offensive emotional response. She says we’re the ones being emotional. Like usual though she does not back up that accusation.
They knew enough that whatever they said in 1787 would probably need to be changed down the road as society changed, thus the amendment process. The rights of blacks and women would not exist today without it. Is it too unreasonable to assume that they thought we would change 2A some day if society changed significantly? And i will throw 1A in there as well. how many supreme court cases have been decided about that amendment, each one updating the interpretation of it to meet the needs of modern society. The genius is in the flexibility of the constitution, not one individual protection or one specific sentence. Without the flexibility to change constitutional protections, we would not be a nation today.
Mike R,:
Without a guarntee of constraint (of the government) via the force of arms, if necessary.
Where would we be “as a Nation today”?
You have reached the “genius of the Constitution moment.” Welcome to the greatest society the world has ever known.
Want to buy a gun?
see link
Right, but each of those 1st Amendment decisions expanded the 1st to be MORE inclusive (which is a good thing and a natural progression for individual rights)
Name one individual right in the BOR that the Court’s have restricted as technology has changed. Also, even if we were to amend the the Constitution to abolish the 2A I’d still have the right to keep & bear arms. Rights aren’t dependent upon the Constitution for their existence.
U.S. Citizen – I see you have CTC grips for a Sig P228 available. I may be ordering a set from you when I have the cash. I think I still have your card from the Blog Bash.
wooohooo they circled the cavalry on us….heeeeehaaaaawwwww
Nothing substantive or intelligent to add to the discussion DTB?
No prob.
Let me know where you want them delivered!
P.S. Cavalry not required. This is just your normal interstate commerce in action.
Nothing to see here, move along, Thank you.
MarkR
I think the difference is that I am willing to accept the risks of a free society. That includes my neighbor shooting his gun by negligence or accident and the bullet penetrating my house. I feel that risk is very negligible and after penetrating a few walls the velocity will probably not be dangerous. Since I have gas for heat, the risk of a gas explosion is there. Those explosions demolish houses and any one in them. However that risk is acceptable for the benefits of having gas for cooking and heat. The risk is manageable in other word. There is a risk of a foolish driver going off the road and hitting my house. That risk would be higher if I lived on a highway. This does happen but is not common. The risk is managed by insurance.
Many people have paint, paint thinner, varnish and other flammable liquids that could add to risk of a fire. However the usefulness of these items easily outweigh the risk. Hopefully the fire department can get there fast enough to save your house. That is why we have fire departments.
The risk of a decent law abiding gun owner to you is minimal. Easily less than the risk of getting in a car accident on your way to work. Depending on where you live and where you frequent the risk from crime can be minor to severe.
There is no need for any limits because the extremes you mention are not economically viable. For example say your neighbor is a farmer and he has always wanted a tank. He gets one surplus, some people do that. He drives around his farm and has great fun. The added cost to him is that he is not allowed to drive it on the road. One, it is not licensed for road use and two, it tears up the road. Now say this framer gets drunk and decides to take it out on the road. People notice, the police come. He gets arrested for DUI and gets a bill for the road damage. Oh boy, now he regrets that foolishness. He has to get a lot of money and his insurance won’t pay for the damages. He either has to liquidate his savings or sell property to pay the bill. That very real cost tends to impress the fact that using the tank irresponsibly is a bad idea.
Now neighbor 2 loves artillery and he decided since he is a machinist that he will build an artillery unit and once that is done he needs to get shells. Now artillery shells are not on the market, but neighbor 2 really wants one. So he gets an empty brass shell off surplus and makes his own load. Chances he may blow up his garage in the attempt. Now say he succeeds and launches his shell. It actually hits a house not a great possibility and now neighbor 2 is spending a lot of time in jail. His negligence was reckless and there are a lot of laws he broke in the manufacture of the shell. The house gets it repaired through their homeowners insurance and unlikely anyone was actually in the room when the shell landed. That likely risk is probably on the scale of a part of an airplane part falling off and landing on a house.
The founders actually did have personal ownership of cannons and ships of war. So the personal ownership of military ordnance was accepted and they used that ordnance to fight a revolutionary war. However the maintenance of those items was generally too expensive for people to keep around unless converted for other purposes.
The point is that lots of people have dangerous items and rarely misuse them. The farmer son doesn’t take the tractor and decide to crash into the neighbor’s house. He would get in too much trouble and could easily restrain that impulse if he was stupid enough to think of it.
So the chances that people are going to buy dangerous military hardware and misuse it are extremely remote. This is just fear mongering on a risk that is remote. Everyday living involves higher chances from cars and house fires.
RAH:
Bingo!
“I have to say that I highly doubt that the founding fathers would have been that general with 2A if they had any concept of the types of arms that we would be dolling out to people 200 years later, but we can leave that up to the constitutional scholars.”
1) The fallacy here is that the Framers–many of whom were military men–would not have expected weapons to advance; the evolution of weaponry over the 200 years prior to them had been almost as significant as would occur over the next 200. Besides, it is interesting to note that your argument didn’t occur with the development of the rifled musket, the semi-automatic pistol, the tank, the jet fighter, or even atomic weapons. It began when crime got out of control with the advent of the war on drugs in the late 1970s.
2) Your “highly doubt” is an opinion and not evidence. Just because you “highly doubt” without evidence is not a firm foundation for constitutional change.
3) The “leave it to the Constitutional scholars” line is disingenuous, because it basically says, “I know what I want to do about firearms, so don’t bother me with real Constitutional arguments.”
“you gun rights advocates are funny. no middle ground at all.”
dv–so where is the middle ground?
“you gun rights advocates are funny. no middle ground at all.”
dv–so where is the middle ground?
To adapt on a Scalia quote, I’ll bet Don Vito’s “middle ground” is somewhere between what the Constitution says and what he would like it to say, or between what it means and what he would like it to mean.
As y’all try to look for some “middle ground” here, I’d ask where one finds the middle ground in “shall not be infringed?”
Have you been looking for some “middle ground” in the First Amendment, telling us where the Congress reasonably could restrict the freedom of speech? Has this site been seeking the “middle ground” on unreasonable search and seizure, the FISA bill being a notable topic thereunder?
Middle ground was reached with the background checks( NICS) . Since 1968 guns rights have been restricted. I should be able to order a gun thru mail order and not have it go through an FFL in my state.
The scary thing is that every concession the pro-rights side makes is never enough. We sometimes forget that the stated goal of anti-gun groups is to abolish civilian ownership of arms. Every gun is “too dangerous,” “too powerful” ” too big or small” “Too loud or quiet” You can’t compromise with them because no concession will be good enough.
Besides, why the hell should we be conceding ground when it comes to defense of a fundamental civil right?!