Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Is a .22 really going to stop an Apache gunship and an Abrams tank? I think the idea was sound when passed, but it no longer achieves its intended goal. If you think we need to be armed to prevent against government oppression, then you should lobby to make it legal to buy anti-tank rockets, surface to air missiles, anti-ship missiles, etc.

Maybe not the tank or the Apache, but it's operator.

The rice farmers of Vietnam did a pretty good job against the F-4 Phantom and the falling bombs of B-52s.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Is a .22 really going to stop an Apache gunship and an Abrams tank? I think the idea was sound when passed, but it no longer achieves its intended goal. If you think we need to be armed to prevent against government oppression, then you should lobby to make it legal to buy anti-tank rockets, surface to air missiles, anti-ship missiles, etc.

No, but Iraq is doing a pretty good imitation right now with a "resistence" effort. That type of effort is obviously, effective against a VASTLY superior force. I read it costs the average rebel about $400 to equip himself. Same article stated that the average American soldier about 14K to equip.

Incidently, I have seen video footage of two Afghan guys launch a couple of Black Market Surface to air missles (cost $1000 each) drop two 25m MIG's.

[724Skinsfan]

Originally Posted by offiss

Criminals will alway's find a way to get a gun, it's just that simple, revoking the right to own guns will only hurt the innocent, and put society as a whole in much more danger to the whims of our goverment, the reason we have the right to own guns is the founding fathers realized that the greed of goverment knows no bounds, and the people of that goverment must be able to defend against a totalatering gov't. The more people that own guns the safer we really are, I believe some people should have to take a coarse on how to properly use one if they have never been around them, but we will never stop these whacko's but we can't limit thier ability to go on a rampage like this guy did. Safety through strength!

This is the assumption that a person is already "wacko" before he purchases a gun. There are plenty of incidents in which a normal person loses it and grabs his/her gun to exact immediate revenge (road rage, adultery, alcohol-exacerbated argument, etc). That's the main problem with guns: they provide an irrevocable and immediate end to a situation that, with time, could keep some people alive with a bruised ego as the only long standing injury.

On the flip side, if all guns are illegal then any current criminal can pretty much burglarize a home, murder the owner with relative impunity.

I say weapons manufacturers need to start developing more nonlethal yet quick incapacitating weapons to help an individual defend himself, his family and his property.

[Beemnseven]

For all those against the private ownership of guns, are you glad the students at VT weren't allowed to carry firearms for self-defense?

What happened on Monday is Exhibit A in the experiment that is gun control. Law abiding individuals are denied the ability to have guns in a certain area -- crazed lunatic breaks that rule, has a gun anyway and kills scores of people.

Now, simply carry that same example to a larger scope. Why would this scenario be any different in a society which outlaws gun ownership?

[Beemnseven]

First, I think we have to clearly define our positions. I am not making the argument that gun control laws are keeping guns out of the wrong hands. In fact, my position is just the opposite. Gun control laws do not apply to those who break the law and use firearms to harm other people.

The VT argument does work because it represents exactly the parameters of the classic society in which restrictions on the ownership of firearms are placed upon the law abiding public.

The campus of Virginia Tech does not permit the possession of firearms -- just like some cities in the United States and around the world have similar restrictions. Since firearms will always be available on the black market no matter what legislative steps have been taken to eliminate them, those that have no intention of causing harm or breaking the law will never have firearms. They follow the law -- therefore they won't have firearms.

But a law-breaker, intent on violating the rights of those he knows to be unarmed and defenseless, is not affected by the Virginia Tech policy on firearms (just like the perpetrators in cities where gun control is very strict).

This guy did buy his guns legally, and brought them into a place where the laws say that you may not have a gun under any circumstances, for any reason. You can use this scenario in the gun control argument whether the perpetrator purchased the guns legally or on the black market. You will have the same outcome either way -- the unarmed victim will be at the complete mercy of an armed criminal.

I'd be willing to bet that the police would find their jobs much easier and safe if they could burst through the doors of unsuspecting citizens in the middle of the night without the burden of a search warrant or probable cause. Does that mean we should bow to their demands of tighter gun control?

As for Vietnam, my point was to illustrate how a determined populace whose only aim is to defend their homeland and protect their individual rights, even while armed with the most basic weaponry available can upend the most powerful, technologically advanced army the world has ever known.

And this country has far more powerful weaponry than just .22s in the general public. If poor, backward rice farmers can repel the United States of America, how would America's troops fare against their own families, hometowns, and countrymen?

[Beemnseven]

Well, short of sounding like I live in a cabin in Wyoming working on my manifesto, our founding fathers discussed that same topic concerning the very government they themselves formed.

Governments made up of men are always capable of evil. Not saying we are at that point yet, but the 2nd amendment was instituted so that the citizens would always have the capacity to overthrow their government.

Thomas Jefferson said that the tree of liberty must be freshened from time to time with the blood of tyrants. That concept was never meant to be so foreign.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Well, short of sounding like I live in a cabin in Wyoming working on my manifesto, our founding fathers discussed that same topic concerning the very government they themselves formed.

Governments made up of men are always capable of evil. Not saying we are at that point yet, but the 2nd amendment was instituted so that the citizens would always have the capacity to overthrow their government.

Thomas Jefferson said that the tree of liberty must be freshened from time to time with the blood of tyrants. That concept was never meant to be so foreign.

Wow, it's so refreshing to hear you say that. Most people think I'm crazy, or stupid, when I say things like that. You are a true patriot.

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.

It's a crazy idea, and it would probably never work, but that is what I would like to see happen.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by offiss

Criminals will alway's find a way to get a gun, it's just that simple, revoking the right to own guns will only hurt the innocent, and put society as a whole in much more danger to the whims of our goverment, the reason we have the right to own guns is the founding fathers realized that the greed of goverment knows no bounds, and the people of that goverment must be able to defend against a totalatering gov't. The more people that own guns the safer we really are, I believe some people should have to take a coarse on how to properly use one if they have never been around them, but we will never stop these whacko's but we can't limit thier ability to go on a rampage like this guy did. Safety through strength!

nice post. i agree with you 100%.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I'm not sure if you're being facetious (I'm drinking now since it's my last night until the wedding TO drink), but if you're not, I would totally agree.

Why would it be so bad for gun dealers to have to submit a request with a doctor of some kind stating that person A wants to buy a gun. Say they the doctor says they can't and they're perfectly healthy mentally, is that REALLY an outrage? I'll take a hundred mentally healthy people not getting a gun rather than ONE psycho getting one.

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I'm not sure if you're being facetious (I'm drinking now since it's my last night until the wedding TO drink), but if you're not, I would totally agree.

Why would it be so bad for gun dealers to have to submit a request with a doctor of some kind stating that person A wants to buy a gun. Say they the doctor says they can't and they're perfectly healthy mentally, is that REALLY an outrage? I'll take a hundred mentally healthy people not getting a gun rather than ONE psycho getting one.

It's not outrageous. It's perfectly logical. Applicants for carry concealed permits have to submit to a mental health check automatically. They can be asked about any prior mental health history as well. Some states also require a letter from the applicant's physician. Why in the world don't we require applicants who wish to purchase a firearm to be expected to submit to the same standard? You have to buy a gun before you can carry it.

If the privacy folks are so against us obtaining mental records, then at least require these applicants to produce a letter from their doctor saying they are competent enough to possess a firearm.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I lean more towards Schneed's view even though I wouldn't want to see it totally repealed. I know that people say, "Well, they'd go find a gun anyway." Seriously, I think it would be a little worse before it got better but then after that, I think that people who even SEE someone with a gun, would consider them a threat. Sure, Nice Korean Guy comes into the store and buys a gun, then he goes nuts. I think if guns are made totally illegal, that makes them far more inaccessible than you'd think.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I lean more towards Schneed's view even though I wouldn't want to see it totally repealed. I know that people say, "Well, they'd go find a gun anyway." Seriously, I think it would be a little worse before it got better but then after that, I think that people who even SEE someone with a gun, would consider them a threat. Sure, Nice Korean Guy comes into the store and buys a gun, then he goes nuts. I think if guns are made totally illegal, that makes them far more inaccessible than you'd think.

How many guns are in the United States today? Gun control advocates always point to a number -- whatever that number is -- and say that it's too many. So if that's the case, and there are hundreds of millions of handguns and rifles already in the population, what happens to those weapons once they are made illegal? They go into the black market.

Now, you have the problem with guns just like you do illegal drugs. Is marijuana illegal? How difficult is it to obtain? Not very.

That horse is already out of the barn. To place any type of restriction on the ownership of firearms would be a fruitless exercise. And you only make the situation worse.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Suppose that the VT murderer was a U.S. citizen and devout follower of Bin Laden. How would the anti-gun control/pro-Patriot Act crowd react?

[Lady Brave]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Suppose that the VT murderer was a U.S. citizen and devout follower of Bin Laden. How would the anti-gun control/pro-Patriot Act crowd react?

He probably would have been on a list to begin with. So they probably would have been aware of him. I can't talk about the list. If I did, I would have to kill you.

If anything I think people would be even more outraged and the case for allowing those students to carry concealed on campus would be stronger.

We actually had a person like you described run over students at a NC college with his car not long ago. We can't ban cars. People are going to find ways to commit violence if they really want to.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Beems, I wouldn't use the VT incident as a bassi for saying that gun control laws are too strict. This guy bought his gun legally. That sorta kills the argument that gun control laws are keeping weapons out of the wrong hands.

I still cannot understand how laypeople say gun laws need to be loosened when policemen overwhelmingly think the opposite. I'm not saying people with a "loosen gun control laws" don't have interesting or valid arguments, but I haven't heard any reason why I shouldn't listen to people whose business it is to keep the streets safe.

As for Vietnam, I can assure you that not many .22s brought down F-4s and B-52s flying at 50,000 feet. We lost most of our aircrew to SAMs and AAA.