246 replies to this topic

[Peppy22]

I know it's a difficult topic but I don't understand how someone can legaly buy that many guns.

[weave]

COSabre, on 21 July 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

Perhaps you are the one spreading misinformation.  You are wrong about the wording of the 1994 assault weapons ban. I will give you that "easy" is perhaps not the best choice of words for an AR-15 modification, but it can be done with a little bit of cash and know-how.

And the addition of parts that the manufacturer is required to register with the federal government.  And significant modifications to the AR receiver.  In order to purchase those parts you must be registered with the federal government as being licensed to possess fully auto weapons.  Regular, ordinary people are not, and can not, purchas the components necessary to perform this modification.  It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Quote

The 1994 bill specifically banned 19 different types of military-style semi-automatic guns (AK-47s, Uzis, TEC-9s, etc.). The ban made it unlawful to “manufacture, transfer
or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon” made after September 1994, as well as large capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The AR-15 used by this kid in the theater shooting would have been banned.
http://home.comcast....jd/rkba/awb.htm
(The actual bill is a monster, so I don't expect anyone here to actually read it.)

To be clear, the point of bills like this isn't to eliminate such weapons, it is to make them harder to obtain and it also gives the police more jurisdiction to confiscate certain high-powered weapons without researching the legality of ownership.

Reread the 1st page of your link.  The bill banned:

Any semiautomatic rifle made after 9/13/94, which can accept a detachable magazine and which has two or more of the following characteristics is a banned AW:

• Folding or telescoping stock,
  
• Pistol grip which protrudes conspicuously below the action of the gun,
  
• Bayonet mount,
  
• Flash suppressor or a threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor,
  
• Grenade launcher.

Like I said, plenty of guns were made, sold, and imported during this "ban", they just gave them non folding stocks without pistol grips, and took off the flash suppresors, etc.  I know they were available from this time period because I have purchased them.  Legally.  Filled out all the paperwork.

[TrueBluePhD]

Ghost of Dwight Drane, on 21 July 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Wow.....wonder what career field you're headed for?  

I'm in the "against crappy arguments" field, but.....touche .

It's just ridiculous how people try to create outrageous justifications for wanting to own guns.  Why can't it just be "The Second Amendment says I can own guns, I like my guns, and I don't want to give them up"...?  Why is that so hard?  Instead, it's "the government will be afraid of the peashooter in my closet!"  If the government wants to shove a hellfire missile up your ass, having a few assault weapons isn't going to deter it.  In fact, if ###### ever truly hit the fan, owning assault weapons is probably painting a giant target on your back for said hellfire missile.

[weave]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 July 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

I'm in the "against crappy arguments" field, but.....touche .

It's just ridiculous how people try to create outrageous justifications for wanting to own guns.  Why can't it just be "The Second Amendment says I can own guns, I like my guns, and I don't want to give them up"...?  Why is that so hard?  Instead, it's "the government will be afraid of the peashooter in my closet!"  If the government wants to shove a hellfire missile up your ass, having a few assault weapons isn't going to deter it.  In fact, if ###### ever truly hit the fan, owning assault weapons is probably painting a giant target on your back for said hellfire missile.

Because there is no internet baddassery in, I just like to own guns.  

[SwampD]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 July 2012 - 05:55 PM, said:

Again, you're both talking outside of reality.  The reality is, if the government wants to start oppressing the crap out of us, no amount of AR-15s stashed in your basement is going to do you a damn bit of good if an MIA1 rolls down the street, or a drone targets you with a hellfire missile, or an Apache is patrolling the skies.  It's all a bunch of garbage.  The only way to remotely defend against a government assault is with military-grade, anti-armor weaponry.  Does anybody think I should be able to purchase a stinger missile at Gander Mountain?  Or how about a mortar, should those be readily available?  Actually how about we go to the extreme that I should be able to purchase an F-22 to protect myself in case the government tries to enforce marshal law.  This "protection against government oppression" is such an absurd fallacy.

How's that workin' out in Afghanistan?

d4rksabre, on 21 July 2012 - 06:00 PM, said:

So you think it's realistic to expect the US Government to take up military arms against its own people? Without intervention from say....the UN? Or Canada? Or Britain? Or Mexico? Or any other country that would want to hit us while our pants are around our ankles?

There is no way, in modern times, that the United States will ever enact full military assault on its own people. It will never happen.

Yeah, cuz history has proven over and over that that never happens.  Somehow we'll be different, I just know it.

[d4rksabre]

SwampD, on 21 July 2012 - 07:08 PM, said:

How's that workin' out in Afghanistan?

Yeah, cuz history has proven over and over that that never happens.  Somehow we'll be different, I just know it.

Britain doesn't have guns and their government seems to be doing just fine at not oppressing them.

This isn't the 1700s. This isn't the Middle Ages. This is a globalized time where the US striking out and oppressing its people will basically ensure its complete and total destruction.

The whole argument is the same as "my commercial air liner might go down so I brought my own parachute".

We don't need these silly pacifiers. They're pointless.

[thanes16]

d4rksabre, on 21 July 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Britain doesn't have guns and their government seems to be doing just fine at not oppressing them.

This isn't the 1700s. This isn't the Middle Ages. This is a globalized time where the US striking out and oppressing its people will basically ensure its complete and total destruction.

The whole argument is the same as "my commercial air liner might go down so I brought my own parachute".

We don't need these silly pacifiers. They're pointless.

Agreed.

[SwampD]

d4rksabre, on 21 July 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Britain doesn't have guns and their government seems to be doing just fine at not oppressing them.

This isn't the 1700s. This isn't the Middle Ages. This is a globalized time where the US striking out and oppressing its people will basically ensure its complete and total destruction.

The whole argument is the same as "my commercial air liner might go down so I brought my own parachute".

We don't need these silly pacifiers. They're pointless.

You're probably right.  I don't know where you were shortly after 9-11, but it got really weird around here in the NYC area.  The national furvor to go and kill brown people scared the ch!t out of me.  As a liberal (vote mostly Dem), I was really glad I had my guns (never mind the fact that they are family guns and have been locked in a case for twenty years now).

[d4rksabre]

Now, to balance my point, I love guns. They're a ton of fun. I've owned several over the years and would love to collect them someday. I see no harm in having guns.

But am I going to be heartbroken if I can't own a full auto AK? Or a M82? No. Because I don't need it. They wont do me any good ever, for anything.

When and if the shizz ever hits the fan, it isn't going to matter how much killing my guns can do. We no longer live in an era of musketballs and bayonets. We live in an age where if the US decides it wants to kick our ######, we're just going to have to take it like men, because our stupid little militias wont stand a chance.

I'll take a wool blanket and a bottle of Rye. That'll do me more good than an AR-15 ever will.

SwampD, on 21 July 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

You're probably right.  I don't know where you were shortly after 9-11, but it got really weird around here in the NYC area.  The national furvor to go and kill brown people scared the ch!t out of me.  As a liberal (vote mostly Dem), I was really glad I had my guns (never mind the fact that they are family guns and have been locked in a case for twenty years now).

Nothin wrong with having them to protect yourself from the crazies. But we both know if anything got real the Army would have been in there stomping faces with the greatest of ease.

[SwampD]

d4rksabre, on 21 July 2012 - 07:29 PM, said:

Now, to balance my point, I love guns. They're a ton of fun. I've owned several over the years and would love to collect them someday. I see no harm in having guns.

But am I going to be heartbroken if I can't own a full auto AK? Or a M82? No. Because I don't need it. They wont do me any good ever, for anything.

When and if the shizz ever hits the fan, it isn't going to matter how much killing my guns can do. We no longer live in an era of musketballs and bayonets. We live in an age where if the US decides it wants to kick our ######, we're just going to have to take it like men, because our stupid little militias wont stand a chance.

I'll take a wool blanket and a bottle of Rye. That'll do me more good than an AR-15 ever will.



Nothin wrong with having them to protect yourself from the crazies. But we both know if anything got real the Army would have been in there stomping faces with the greatest of ease.

I'm not sure about that.  There's no oil under my house.

Edited by SwampD, 21 July 2012 - 07:35 PM.

[TrueBluePhD]

SwampD, on 21 July 2012 - 07:28 PM, said:

You're probably right.  I don't know where you were shortly after 9-11, but it got really weird around here in the NYC area.  The national furvor to go and kill brown people scared the ch!t out of me.  As a liberal (vote mostly Dem), I was really glad I had my guns (never mind the fact that they are family guns and have been locked in a case for twenty years now).

And I can completely respect that.  I'm not personally a gun owner, but I have plenty of friends who own them, and I have nothing against gun ownership in general.  I just don't think some sensible regulations are going to cause the doom of freedom, that's all.

And frankly, if you want to be able to fight the government if ###### hits the fan, start becoming a programming nerd and elite hacker, that'll be way more effective than a few guns

[thanes16]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 July 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

And I can completely respect that.  I'm not personally a gun owner, but I have plenty of friends who own them, and I have nothing against gun ownership in general.  I just don't think some sensible regulations are going to cause the doom of freedom, that's all.

And frankly, if you want to be able to fight the government if ###### hits the fan, start becoming a programming nerd and elite hacker, that'll be way more effective than a few guns

Die Hard 4 showed that! lol That movie blew so bad...

[drnkirishone]

the problem with gun control is where does it end?  it was we gotta ban full automatic weapons. It has mostly happened with only gun experts and what not being allowed to purchase them now. Now its we gotta ban semi automatics with clips. So lets say that happens. how long till we say lets ban every weapon type from 1777 on up?

I agree that me owning some rifles and shotguns won't stop a miltary strike from killing me and destroying my house. The right to bear arms to me is meant to provide a form of resistance to opression from my govt or a conquering one by making the cost of oppression so high that the oppressors can't sustain it.

Having said that, more work needs to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of maniacs

[sizzlemeister]

Even with the US arms catalog at there disposal, there's no way the government could simply storm the streets and not suffer for it, especially with an armed citizenry.  Witness Iraq and Afgahnistan.  A 1 million man army versus the remaining 299 million, even though the former is well equipped, is not the greatest of odds.

Not all of those million will take up arms against their own people, of course, nor will the 299 million fight back, but the point stands.

Vietnam is another great illustration of the point.

Reality? Did Hooker Chemical expect the city of Niagara Falls to build a neighborhood on a chemical dump? "It says in the contract there's a dump there, I don't know why they want the land, but surely they 'll never build houses there..."

Did the Japanese engineers think a tsunami would come and cause a nuclear meltdown?  Did WE ever think there'd be a terrorist strike like 9/11 before it ever happened? Modern examples of a tragic short-sighted perspective abound. You can choose to ignore that reality, and stick with trying to pigeonhole "reality" to fit your world view, or accept the truth that human history shows ANYTHING is possible.

TrueBluePhD, on 21 July 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

And frankly, if you want to be able to fight the government if ###### hits the fan, start becoming a programming nerd and elite hacker, that'll be way more effective than a few guns

A few EMP bombs and a lot of the electronics are removed from the equation.

[wjag]

I would be personally in favor of a hand gun and semi-automatic gun ban..  I am okay with folks owning rifles and shotguns for hunting and that's about it.

[Peppy22]

drnkirishone, on 21 July 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

the problem with gun control is where does it end?  it was we gotta ban full automatic weapons. It has mostly happened with only gun experts and what not being allowed to purchase them now. Now its we gotta ban semi automatics with clips. So lets say that happens. how long till we say lets ban every weapon type from 1777 on up?

I agree that me owning some rifles and shotguns won't stop a miltary strike from killing me and destroying my house. The right to bear arms to me is meant to provide a form of resistance to opression from my govt or a conquering one by making the cost of oppression so high that the oppressors can't sustain it.

Having said that, more work needs to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of maniacs

problem is, everyone can turn into a maniac if something "special" happens. What I mean is... the friendly next door neighboor can still have a kneejerk reaction to something.

[drnkirishone]

Peppy22, on 21 July 2012 - 07:57 PM, said:

problem is, everyone can turn into a maniac if something "special" happens. What I mean is... the friendly next door neighboor can still have a kneejerk reaction to something.

problem is anyone with access to the internet and the ability to follow written direction can also make IED's and go have a kneejerk reaction. Or as others said go grab some keys and go for some vehicular slaughter.

banning all guns won't fix the problem cause we humans are violent and destructive and we will just move on to the next best option

[TrueBluePhD]

sizzlemeister, on 21 July 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Even with the US arms catalog at there disposal, there's no way the government could simply storm the streets and not suffer for it, especially with an armed citizenry.  Witness Iraq and Afgahnistan.  A 1 million man army versus the remaining 299 million, even though the former is well equipped, is not the greatest of odds.

Not all of those million will take up arms against their own people, of course, nor will the 299 million fight back, but the point stands.

Vietnam is another great illustration of the point.

Reality? Did Hooker Chemical expect the city of Niagara Falls to build a neighborhood on a chemical dump? "It says in the contract there's a dump there, I don't know why they want the land, but surely they 'll never build houses there..."

Did the Japanese engineers think a tsunami would come and cause a nuclear meltdown?  Did WE ever think there'd be a terrorist strike like 9/11 before it ever happened? Modern examples of a tragic short-sighted perspective abound. You can choose to ignore that reality, and stick with trying to pigeonhole "reality" to fit your world view, or accept the truth that human history shows ANYTHING is possible.

It's pretty hard to equate foreign wars with civil wars, not the least of which would be the international forces that D4rk mentioned.  And there's the collective action problem that not everybody would be on the same side.  

Oh, and as evidenced by Germany, dictators can come to power through democratic means.  I suppose we should abolish elections to prevent that from happening here

drnkirishone, on 21 July 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

the problem with gun control is where does it end?  it was we gotta ban full automatic weapons. It has mostly happened with only gun experts and what not being allowed to purchase them now. Now its we gotta ban semi automatics with clips. So lets say that happens. how long till we say lets ban every weapon type from 1777 on up?

I agree that me owning some rifles and shotguns won't stop a miltary strike from killing me and destroying my house. The right to bear arms to me is meant to provide a form of resistance to opression from my govt or a conquering one by making the cost of oppression so high that the oppressors can't sustain it.

Having said that, more work needs to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of maniacs

You can make those kinds of arguments for anything though.  For example, take freedom of the press.  Do you really think the press should be able to publish troop movements in foreign wars?  Probably not.  But using your proposed logic, they should be able to, because it's a slippery slope and where does it stop?

[drnkirishone]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 July 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

It's pretty hard to equate foreign wars with civil wars, not the least of which would be the international forces that D4rk mentioned.  And there's the collective action problem that not everybody would be on the same side.  

Oh, and as evidenced by Germany, dictators can come to power through democratic means.  I suppose we should abolish elections to prevent that from happening here




You can make those kinds of arguments for anything though.  For example, take freedom of the press.  Do you really think the press should be able to publish troop movements in foreign wars?  Probably not.  But using your proposed logic, they should be able to, because it's a slippery slope and where does it stop?

well if we want to play that game. according to your logic we should ban cars, physical sports, beer, smoking, and eating utensils. cause all of them can and have been used to kill people.

comparing freedom of the press/publishing troops movements in a war to right to bear arms/banning guns is silly

[TrueBluePhD]

drnkirishone, on 21 July 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

well if we want to play that game. according to your logic we should ban cars, physical sports, beer, smoking, and eating utensils. cause all of them can and have been used to kill people.

comparing freedom of the press/publishing troops movements in a war to right to bear arms/banning guns is silly

Of course we shouldn't ban all of those things, it's a ridiculous argument.  But does that stop speed limits in residential areas?  Have residential area speed limits led to the banning of automobiles?  Of course not, and that's the point.  Literally every regulation passed relating to anything has a potentially slippery slope--but we haven't slipped down those hypothetical slopes.  I see no reason why firearm regulation is any more slippery than anything else.

[K-9]

d4rksabre, on 21 July 2012 - 07:13 PM, said:

Britain doesn't have guns and their government seems to be doing just fine at not oppressing them.

This isn't the 1700s. This isn't the Middle Ages. This is a globalized time where the US striking out and oppressing its people will basically ensure its complete and total destruction.

The whole argument is the same as "my commercial air liner might go down so I brought my own parachute".

We don't need these silly pacifiers. They're pointless.

You've never seen 'Red Dawn' have you?

I thought so.

[deluca67]

drnkirishone, on 21 July 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

the problem with gun control is where does it end? it was we gotta ban full automatic weapons. It has mostly happened with only gun experts and what not being allowed to purchase them now. Now its we gotta ban semi automatics with clips. So lets say that happens. how long till we say lets ban every weapon type from 1777 on up?

I agree that me owning some rifles and shotguns won't stop a miltary strike from killing me and destroying my house. The right to bear arms to me is meant to provide a form of resistance to opression from my govt or a conquering one by making the cost of oppression so high that the oppressors can't sustain it.

Having said that, more work needs to be done to keep weapons out of the hands of maniacs

If people can live just fine without bazookas, missile launchers and anti-aircraft guns in their front yard they will do just fine with standard shotguns, riffles and revolvers.

I laugh when when the "Right to Bear Arms" is clung onto. There is a difference between "arms" as our founding fathers knew them and a highly efficient killing machine designed to kill many in a short period of time.

[sizzlemeister]

DeLuca67, on 21 July 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

I laugh when when the "Right to Bear Arms" is clung onto. There is a difference between "arms" as our founding fathers knew them and a highly efficient killing machine designed to kill many in a short period of time.

Not really. A rifle, back then, was a highly efficient killing machine.  And, on that point, if they were to be scared by how efficient weapons were to become, they'd probably have facilitated some way for the people to defend itself from a government wielding such weapons.

If you want to walk down the "what the Founding Fathers would think" road, they'd have certainly made it more difficult for the federal government to seize power from the states had they known the depths of apathy and selfishness amongst the populace many generations after the founding fathers were dead.

Edited by sizzlemeister, 21 July 2012 - 09:16 PM.

[d4rksabre]

K-9, on 21 July 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

You've never seen 'Red Dawn' have you?

I thought so.

Yes, because that's a realistic scenario.

[SwampD]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 July 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

Of course we shouldn't ban all of those things, it's a ridiculous argument.  But does that stop speed limits in residential areas?  Have residential area speed limits led to the banning of automobiles?  Of course not, and that's the point.  Literally every regulation passed relating to anything has a potentially slippery slope--but we haven't slipped down those hypothetical slopes.  I see no reason why firearm regulation is any more slippery than anything else.

Unless you stop it at the manufacturing and distribution level, A whole bunch more regulations aren't going to do anything.

When my grandfather passed, I got his two guns.  I live in NJ though and he lived in NY.  I thought there might be some laws about state lines and such so I went to a gun shop to ask how to get them.  I ended up going to four shops by the end and they all told me the same thing.  I had to go to the Police station and get fingerprinted and a background check in order to get a firearm purchaser ID card, which I did (and of course they misplaced it and it took almost six months to get).  Then they said I had to go to a gun shop in NY and have them ship it store to store where I could then pick it up, for a fee, of course.

The thing is, while I was finding all that out,.. I ALREADY HAD THE GUNS!  I went back to visit family and just brought them back.  All the gun laws did was make me jump through hoops for a couple of months because I want to be bonifidy.

And in doing research since then, I'm not even really sure that I had to do any of that given the types of guns and their (non)use.  Although, I think one of them may have been illegal for a minute there under the Clinton Assault ban,.. still not sure.

The laws did nothing to keep the guns out of my hands.

K-9, on 21 July 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

You've never seen 'Red Dawn' have you?

I thought so.

I swear the Bush administration watched that movie before going into Iraq.  "Insurgents", "Hearts and Minds", etc, all the terms from the Iraq war were in that movie.

I'll just say it's a dark time in a nation's history when Patrick Swayze is setting policy.

[K-9]

sizzlemeister, on 21 July 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Not really. A rifle, back then, was a highly efficient killing machine. And, on that point, if they were to be scared by how efficient weapons were to become, they'd probably have facilitated some way for the people to defend itself from a government wielding such weapons.

If you want to walk down the "what the Founding Fathers would think" road, they'd have certainly made it more difficult for the federal government to seize power from the states had they known the depths of apathy and selfishness amongst the populace many generations after the founding fathers were dead.

While the Pennsylvania Long Rifle was in existence back then, it was rarely used. Nor was it an efficient killing machine since it took so long to load/re-load. It had limited applications as a sniper weapon but that's about it. The vast majority of soldiers on both sides used muskets as their primary firearm.

[deluca67]

K-9, on 21 July 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

While the Pennsylvania Long Rifle was in existence back then, it was rarely used. Nor was it an efficient killing machine since it took so long to load/re-load. It had limited applications as a sniper weapon but that's about it. The vast majority of soldiers on both sides used muskets as their primary firearm.

Weren't most soldiers killed during the Revolutionary War killed by cannon balls and infection? It is near impossible to kill someone with a musket. You have a better chance beating someone to death with a musket than shooting them to death from any decent range.

[K-9]

DeLuca67, on 21 July 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

Weren't most soldiers killed during the Revolutionary War killed by cannon balls and infection? It is near impossible to kill someone with a musket. You have a better chance beating someone to death with a musket than shooting them to death from any decent range.

That's true. Muskets were notoriously inaccurate from short range, let alone anything further. The shot would actually rattle around the barrel as it came out so it was very difficult to determine where the shot was going. That's why the barrels were so long; it was unsafe to have the musket shot exit the barrel any closer to the shooter. Anyway, my point above was to point out that rifled barrels just weren't in vogue yet.

[deluca67]

sizzlemeister, on 21 July 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Not really. A rifle, back then, was a highly efficient killing machine.  And, on that point, if they were to be scared by how efficient weapons were to become, they'd probably have facilitated some way for the people to defend itself from a government wielding such weapons.

If you want to walk down the "what the Founding Fathers would think" road, they'd have certainly made it more difficult for the federal government to seize power from the states had they known the depths of apathy and selfishness amongst the populace many generations after the founding fathers were dead.

I have no doubt that if they were forming the foundation of this country today, they would have gone about things differently.

K-9, on 21 July 2012 - 09:48 PM, said:

That's true. Muskets were notoriously inaccurate from short range, let alone anything further. The shot would actually rattle around the barrel as it came out so it was very difficult to determine where the shot was going. That's why the barrels were so long; it was unsafe to have the musket shot exit the barrel any closer to the shooter. Anyway, my point above was to point out that rifled barrels just weren't in vogue yet.

Thanks for bringing historical facts to the conversation regarding rifled barrels.

I am am not a "gun person", obviously, I just don't understand why people feel the need to be in possession of such a killing machine. Defending yourself is one thing, how often does the need to kill large numbers of people instantly occur? When is the last time you heard a news story that contained "good thing Mr. Citizen had his automatic weapon and killed that group of people in such a short amount of time. it avoided a real tragedy?"

[thanes16]

sizzlemeister, on 21 July 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

If you want to walk down the "what the Founding Fathers would think" road, they'd have certainly made it more difficult for the federal government to seize power from the states had they known the depths of apathy and selfishness amongst the populace many generations after the founding fathers were dead.

I cannot agree more. People either forget or have not learned about the articles of confederation. When the articles of confederation was established, the federal government had little control. Almost to the extent of a state of anarchy. Our founding fathers decided a more structured, federal government needed to be established. This was established w/ the writing of the Constitution. A problem w/ our Constitution has been the continuing growth of federal government control. As time has passed, states have continued to lose power, control and voice. As each day, act, election, law passes, we continue to step towards a state of totalitarianism. And this bothers me greatly. Our country was founded under the idea of states first. Why has our country deterred from that? Why should the federal government come first? Did the Confederacy, not that I support their actions, foresee what the federal government would become? Did the Confederacy actually have the right idea, which would be the want/continuation of states rights coming before the federal government?  In my opinion, states rights should come before whatever rights the federal government may have. It is how our country was initially set up. I believe if states rights were truly coming first and had the power, we wouldn't be dealing w/ the problems we have today.

[d4rksabre]

thanes16, on 21 July 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

I cannot agree more. People either forget or have not learned about the articles of confederation. When the articles of confederation was established, the federal government had little control. Almost to the extent of a state of anarchy. Our founding fathers decided a more structured, federal government needed to be established. This was established w/ the writing of the Constitution. A problem w/ our Constitution has been the continuing growth of federal government control. As time has passed, states have continued to lose power, control and voice. As each day, act, election, law passes, we continue to step towards a state of totalitarianism. And this bothers me greatly. Our country was founded under the idea of states first. Why has our country deterred from that? Why should the federal government come first? Did the Confederacy, not that I support their actions, foresee what the federal government would become? Did the Confederacy actually have the right idea, which would be the want/continuation of states rights coming before the federal government?  In my opinion, states rights should come before whatever rights the federal government may have. It is how our country was initially set up. I believe if states rights were truly coming first and had the power, we wouldn't be dealing w/ the problems we have today.

I don't want to be Debbie Downer, but for the sake of this thread staying open can we keep the discussion focused on gun control/rights?

[TrueBluePhD]

SwampD, on 21 July 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

Unless you stop it at the manufacturing and distribution level, A whole bunch more regulations aren't going to do anything.

I disagree.  Will they eliminate all problems?  Will passing laws cause everybody to follow them?  Of course not, something along those lines isn't possible.  But to say it will do nothing?  Not everybody follows the speed limit, but some do.  Not everybody avoids illegal drugs, but some do.  Murders, rapes, all still happen with laws against them.  The point of laws isn't to eliminate crime, it's to deter those who can be deterred.  

thanes16, on 21 July 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

I cannot agree more. People either forget or have not learned about the articles of confederation. When the articles of confederation was established, the federal government had little control. Almost to the extent of a state of anarchy. Our founding fathers decided a more structured, federal government needed to be established. This was established w/ the writing of the Constitution. A problem w/ our Constitution has been the continuing growth of federal government control. As time has passed, states have continued to lose power, control and voice. As each day, act, election, law passes, we continue to step towards a state of totalitarianism. And this bothers me greatly. Our country was founded under the idea of states first. Why has our country deterred from that? Why should the federal government come first? Did the Confederacy, not that I support their actions, foresee what the federal government would become? Did the Confederacy actually have the right idea, which would be the want/continuation of states rights coming before the federal government?  In my opinion, states rights should come before whatever rights the federal government may have. It is how our country was initially set up. I believe if states rights were truly coming first and had the power, we wouldn't be dealing w/ the problems we have today.

Yes, the Articles of Confederation was such a wonderful system

And if states had more power, we may not have the same problems we'd have today.  We'd have a whole other set of problems.

[d4rksabre]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 July 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

I disagree.  Will they eliminate all problems?  Will passing laws cause everybody to follow them?  Of course not, something along those lines isn't possible.  But to say it will do nothing?  Not everybody follows the speed limit, but some do.  Not everybody avoids illegal drugs, but some do.  Murders, rapes, all still happen with laws against them.  The point of laws isn't to eliminate crime, it's to deter those who can be deterred.  

Deterrence is such a panacea though.  Those who can be deterred are the type that don't even need the regulation. Deterrence is the theory that brought us the death penalty, Scared Straight, and mandatory minimum sentencing; things that have effectively deterred....no one.

[TrueBluePhD]

d4rksabre, on 21 July 2012 - 10:44 PM, said:

Deterrence is such a panacea though.  Those who can be deterred are the type that don't even need the regulation. Deterrence is the theory that brought us the death penalty, Scared Straight, and mandatory minimum sentencing; things that have effectively deterred....no one.

Right, it doesn't always work.  But it also doesn't never work (yes, I'm awesome and used a double negative).  I mean hey, it has prevented nuclear war since WWII

No matter what you do, you can't legislate against crazy.  I get that.  This guy was going to go on a rampage whether there were gun laws or not.  But if assault weapons were significantly harder to get, maybe he wouldn't have shot 71 people...maybe he'd have only gotten 30.  Perfect?  Nope.  Better?  Yes.

[d4rksabre]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 July 2012 - 10:56 PM, said:

Right, it doesn't always work.  But it also doesn't never work (yes, I'm awesome and used a double negative).  I mean hey, it has prevented nuclear war since WWII

No matter what you do, you can't legislate against crazy.  I get that.  This guy was going to go on a rampage whether there were gun laws or not.  But if assault weapons were significantly harder to get, maybe he wouldn't have shot 71 people...maybe he'd have only gotten 30.  Perfect?  Nope.  Better?  Yes.

And that's in line with a lot of the CJ way of thinking. If crime of a certain type is prevented only 5% more by a measure, then it is a success. If 10 less people had been shot this weekend thanks to a assault weapons ban, then that's a success.

[wjag]

DeLuca67, on 21 July 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

I have no doubt that if they were forming the foundation of this country today, they would have gone about things differently.


Thanks for bringing historical facts to the conversation regarding rifled barrels.

I am am not a "gun person", obviously, I just don't understand why people feel the need to be in possession of such a killing machine. Defending yourself is one thing, how often does the need to kill large numbers of people instantly occur? When is the last time you heard a news story that contained "good thing Mr. Citizen had his automatic weapon and killed that group of people in such a short amount of time. it avoided a real tragedy?"

Certainly going to need them during the Zombie Apocalypse..

[weave]

d4rksabre, on 21 July 2012 - 10:27 PM, said:

I don't want to be Debbie Downer, but for the sake of this thread staying open can we keep the discussion focused on  gun control/rights the tragedy that occurred at the Century 16 theater?

Fixed for me.

Edited by weave, 22 July 2012 - 08:15 AM.

[thanes16]

TrueBluePhD, on 21 July 2012 - 10:39 PM, said:

I disagree.  Will they eliminate all problems?  Will passing laws cause everybody to follow them?  Of course not, something along those lines isn't possible.  But to say it will do nothing?  Not everybody follows the speed limit, but some do.  Not everybody avoids illegal drugs, but some do.  Murders, rapes, all still happen with laws against them.  The point of laws isn't to eliminate crime, it's to deter those who can be deterred.  




Yes, the Articles of Confederation was such a wonderful system

And if states had more power, we may not have the same problems we'd have today.  We'd have a whole other set of problems.

I never said I support the Articles of Confederation. I'm glad the constitution was written. The point I was making is our "founding fathers" wanted an effective federal government, but at the same time they wanted the federal government to have limited control. They attempted to do w/ this the constitution. I'll side w/ their ideas of how a government should be setup/ran. States rights always came first to our "founding fathers."

Let me add this is the last post I'll make on our government on this thread. This topic was setup for the shooting that took place in Aurora.

Edited by thanes16, 22 July 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[Spndnchz]

So..... how 'bout those victims.

[Patty16]

spndnchz, on 22 July 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

So..... how 'bout those victims.

The problem with these types of tragedies is that we, media included, focus on the shooter and that's about it. The only victims I've heard any detail about are the hockey blogger and the gentleman who jumped in front of a bullet.  

No one ever cares to put a foot forward to understand the cause of these tragedies, the US has the highest per capita death by gun rate in the modernized west. It's not even close.  We had a congressman get shot in the head, with multiple fatalities and nothing changed.

The best way to remember the victims is to take steps to prevent another event from happening. If we dont learn from the past we are bound to repeat its errors.