Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Bushead

I've seen all of his reports. I think they are really really good reporting and shows many sides of the story. He doesn't editoralize that much and its just insightful. Love him.

Yeah, he is definately curious and doesn't try to browbeat you into thinking a particular way. With regard to most Middle Eastern issues he definately tries to present both sides of the story. That he is Jewish and still able to maintain a high degree of independence on matters concerning Israel says a lot about his journalistic integrity.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I've got to ask this one again Beems. So, you don't take issue with our central premise (e.g., that in a perfect world guns would be banned). Rather, you believe that it is impossible to get firearms out of circulation?

Would the world be a better place without the need for firearms? Of course.

What if there were no evil, no bad people? No disease? Complete world peace? Yes, all these things would be fantastic. But that's utopia, fantasyland. We don't live in that world.

And no, I don't believe it would be possible to completely remove guns from circulation -- even if it were possible, which I dispute, don't you think enterprising individuals would come up with a weapon of some sort for defense? Nature abhors a vaccuum. Human spirit and ingenuity would prevail and there will only be some other form of destruction to contend with.

Did we not learn anything from the prohibition of alcohol? Are we currently not learning anything from illegal drugs?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

First off, most handguns and assault weapons can be tracked. Second, as guns are confiscated they would be destroyed. Third, guns would no longer be manufactured. Fourth, a more limited supply of guns would drive cost up and, as cost goes up, the ability of criminals to access them decreases. The supply would run out to next to nothing over time.

BTW, I love how you discuss the matter intelligently and civilly. We disagree, but I've gotta give you props for style.

Thank you.

Now, as to your arguments, yes weapons can be traced with serial numbers.

There would be a huge problem with confiscation. Can you imagine the carnage that would ensue when our own government begins the process of rounding up everyone with a gun, busting down their doors, using force to achieve their goals? Certainly, there will be those who willingly conceed. But the sheer number of private citizens and police who would perish in carrying out such a law would be catastrophic.

Guns may not be manufactured here, but the United States as of yet has no power to force their laws on other countries. The business of manufacturing would simply flow to areas where it is not illegal to produce weapons.

A limited supply will drive up the price, then you have the problem of the black market. Our discussion of the illegality of drugs in another thread already addressed this issue. The problem only gets worse at that point.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

You predict that, absent legal gun ownership, the streets of America would be unbelievably chaotic with death everywhere. As a corollary, you believe that the U.S. government is incapable of protecting the people by itself (i.e., it needs gun owners to assist). So, with regard to Iraq, I don't see how you can simply blame their ineffective government for the violence. After all, you already believe that our government is incapable of keeping us relatively safe.

Do I believe that the absence of an adequate police force contributes to a rise in crime in Iraq or elsewhere? Of course. Are the people of Iraq sufficiently armed to protect themselves against crimes of a domestic nature? Obviously not. Would crime disappear if there were no guns in Iraq? We both agree that would not be the case.

I never said the government is incapable of protecting its citizens against crime.

I believe it's an individual right and responsibility to protect yourself. The police cannot be everywhere all the time.

I think one of our fundamental differences SGG, is the extent of our individual rights. Our civilization recognizes these as life, liberty, and property. If you believe individuals have the right to life, liberty, and property, then you must also believe that we have the right to defend these things from the force of others who wish to do harm to us. If we are denied the ability to protect ourselves from the criminal element, if that is officially taken away from us, then we no longer have the expectation of these rights.

Now, you might say that the government is then burdened with this responsibility totally. The problem there, is that a government which is strong enough to give us everything we need, is powerful enough to take it all away. With federal protection, comes federal strings.

It's my belief that ultimately, each of us is responsible for ourselves. That goes from the very basic needs of life -- food, shelter, clothing -- to the defense of those items in the face of an armed attacker.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

You make some good points Beems, but we simply differ. It's clear that I'm "stuck" in my beliefs and you in yours. I can't see either of us persuading the other to reconsider our beliefs, so I'm just going to leave it alone. It was a fun discussion though.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Interesting, I never even thought of that point. There are a lot of criminals who use guns in crimes but who have no intention of using them. Maybe, if they thought they'd get shot at, they'd just ambush people so as to avoid the risk of a "fair" shootout.

That argument wont fly with the fact that florida was the car jack state back in the early 90's, guess what? They allowed people to not only own guns but carry them, and wham car Jackings disapeared, coincidence? I don't think so! Criminals with guns are bonified cowards, they need a swayed advantage to carry out thier crimes, when put in a situation of a even playingfield they usually will cower. Peace through strength is the only solution, so long as we have individuals who refuse to obey the law, or the rights of fellow citizens. The oblishment of guns argument is really just foolish, how much do you want to bet most who take this side also feel that marijuana should be legalized? And the argumant for the legalization would be " we will never stop people from getting it so we might as well legalize it and tax it " but somehow outalwing guns will get rid of them?

[Bushead]

Originally Posted by offiss

That argument wont fly with the fact that florida was the car jack state back in the early 90's, guess what? They allowed people to not only own guns but carry them, and wham car Jackings disapeared, coincidence? I don't think so! Criminals with guns are bonified cowards, they need a swayed advantage to carry out thier crimes, when put in a situation of a even playingfield they usually will cower. Peace through strength is the only solution, so long as we have individuals who refuse to obey the law, or the rights of fellow citizens. The oblishment of guns argument is really just foolish, how much do you want to bet most who take this side also feel that marijuana should be legalized? And the argumant for the legalization would be " we will never stop people from getting it so we might as well legalize it and tax it " but somehow outalwing guns will get rid of them?

You made an X and Y correlation. They would have to be directly related, and who knows, they could be! There are just too many factors to say that this caused that.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Beems, do you think the readily available supply of weapons in Iraq is doing a good job of deterring crime?

I love these rhetorical questions, How many people were butchered and tortured under sadam? Just in case nobody told you we are at war in Iraq, this is not a functioning society as of yet, there is a difference.

I do believe the supply of weopons in Israel is detering plenty of crime, like thier total distruction at the hands of the muslim nation.


What I feel you fail to understand SGG is that you feel this world is filled for the most part with pretty swell individuals, you haven't come to the realization yet that we live in a very evil world with people and nations who are willing to die to have the privledge of killing others.


I would like to know throughout all the dictatorships in this world, N. Korea, China, Cuba, Iran, and so forth, knowing how oppresive they are, how many have a fully armed population? My guess would be none. Yet in maybe the least oppresive country in the world we are the most armed as a far as the citizenship is concerned. Coincidence? I think not!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by offiss

What I feel you fail to understand SGG is that you feel this world is filled for the most part with pretty swell individuals, you haven't come to the realization yet that we live in a very evil world with people and nations who are willing to die to have the privledge of killing others.

I would like to know throughout all the dictatorships in this world, N. Korea, China, Cuba, Iran, and so forth, knowing how oppresive they are, how many have a fully armed population? My guess would be none. Yet in maybe the least oppresive country in the world we are the most armed as a far as the citizenship is concerned. Coincidence? I think not!

Okay offiss, you sucked me back in.

#1. I don't feel the world is filled with pretty swell individuals, which is precisely why I don't think most people should have access to weapons. You, on the other hand, seem to think that most people are swell and trustworthy enough to own firearms. So, I'm not sure who hasn't come to the right "realization" or to work out their logic.

#2. I am not sure why people think our nation would turn into China, Iran, Cuba, etc. without guns. The idea that Clinton, Bush and other politicians are just waiting for the opportunity to storm the Jedi Temple and kill all the younglings is a little far-fetched and paranoid IMO. That notion is about 1mm from the extremist conspiracy plot that the UN is secretly planning to invade the US. I simply don't buy the notion that several fat guys who play war on the weekends in funny clothes are the linchpin of our democracy and, without them, the evil government would turn us into Nazi Germany.

#3. I still have yet to hear anyone quibble with my basic premise that getting rid of all guns would be good. The only thing I hear people say is that you cannot get rid of all guns. And, as I previously mentioned, I think it would not be as difficult to get rid of the vast majority of guns as people think.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Okay offiss, you sucked me back in.

#1. I don't feel the world is filled with pretty swell individuals, which is precisely why I don't think most people should have access to weapons. You, on the other hand, seem to think that most people are swell and trustworthy enough to own firearms. So, I'm not sure who hasn't come to the right "realization" or to work out their logic.

#2. I am not sure why people think our nation would turn into China, Iran, Cuba, etc. without guns. The idea that Clinton, Bush and other politicians are just waiting for the opportunity to storm the Jedi Temple and kill all the younglings is a little far-fetched and paranoid IMO. That notion is about 1mm from the extremist conspiracy plot that the UN is secretly planning to invade the US. I simply don't buy the notion that several fat guys who play war on the weekends in funny clothes are the linchpin of our democracy and, without them, the evil government would turn us into Nazi Germany.

#3. I still have yet to hear anyone quibble with my basic premise that getting rid of all guns would be good. The only thing I hear people say is that you cannot get rid of all guns. And, as I previously mentioned, I think it would not be as difficult to get rid of the vast majority of guns as people think.

Maybe when you figure out how to get rid of drugs first, people will listen to your theory about getting rid of guns, let me ask you, how would you plan to get rid of all these guns? Are you just going to tell people to do it? Or are you going to force them to do it? And if it's the later by what means would you force them??????????

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by offiss

Maybe when you figure out how to get rid of drugs first, people will listen to your theory about getting rid of guns, let me ask you, how would you plan to get rid of all these guns? Are you just going to tell people to do it? Or are you going to force them to do it? And if it's the later by what means would you force them??????????

I think it would be very difficult, but not impossible. But regardless of the feasibility of a weapons ban, I certainly don't think loosening gun laws and increasing gun ownership is the smart thing. I'll leave it at that.

[Redskins8588]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

This is kind of off-topic, but I felt it was appropriate to say, given the nature of the discussion:
I would like to create a "people's army". This army would not be controlled by any government agency, and its focus would not be armed conflict. The focus of this army would be to prepare themselves to take power from the federal government at a moment's notice. Since the government derives most of its power from money, the people's army would focus there. I imagine that this army would be comprised mostly of computer experts who would always have their hands in the government's business. They would break into federal computer networks, and always be ready to strike. If the time came, they would start draining money out of government accounts.

The major effect of this army would be the increased caution of the federal government. You see, the idea is to never have to use the army. The idea is to make the government think twice about infringing on the people's liberties, due to their concern about how the people's army might react.

I like this kind of Idea, but as I read it outloud I realilized something. We have a "peoples army" inplace. Now it might not work as fast as you have indicated, but our founders thought of it. Its called VOTING.

Just out of curiousity, how many people vote on here?

Also, as for anyone who is from PA can attest. This "peoples army" thing works with voting. Just in the past year or maybe 2 years the PA goverment officials voted to give themselves something like a 60% raise. Shortly after they did that, just about everyone in PA threatened to vote there represenative out of office, which caused some to kindly decline the raise they had just got.

Also, I do agree with everything Beenmseven has said in here on this topic. I too have a PA protection permit which entitles me to carry a consealed firearm. Even though I have the permission of PA to carry a consealed firearm I don't. By rights I could carry one hidden in my car, but I don't. Just because one can have the right to carry a consealed firearm doesnt mean that they do all the time if ever. It just the satisfaction of knowing that I have that right to protect not only myself but my 1 year old and 3 year old daughter and my 5 year old son and my wife.

[KLHJ2]

This post was absolutely unnecessary and therefore has been deleted.

[KLHJ2]

This is a tragic story. I am a firearm lover. Gentlemen, make sure that you have an intruder before you fire a shot in the dark.

Florida Man Mistakenly Shoots Fiancee - ABC News


Florida Man Shoots Fiance By Accident | WJBF

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Angry

This is a tragic story. I am a firearm lover. Gentlemen, make sure that you have an intruder before you fire a shot in the dark.

Florida Man Mistakenly Shoots Fiancee - ABC News


Florida Man Shoots Fiance By Accident | WJBF

My daughter is living with my parents for a couple of weeks while she is in the process of moving (she is 24). I asked my father to take the rounds out of his gun while she is there. My concern was they have not had anyone else living with them for over 10 years and if she came home late one night would he remember.