-91 votes

What's wrong with a little gun control?

I don't believe anyone is coming for your guns. I understand that there are people that might want that, but it's just not going to happen. I have no problem with stricter laws. Sorry, but we don't need AK 47's. And guess what, nothing suggested in any of the current proposals would even mean that you'd have to give up yours if you had one. These were the same views Reagan had:

In 1986 he signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It banned ownership of any fully automatic rifles that were not already registered on the day the law was signed.

As governor of California, Reagan signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited carrying loaded firearms in public.

He also supported a 15-day waiting period.

And are background checks really a bad thing for someone to own a gun. I mean to drive a car you need to take a test and get a license. You need to be 16, sometimes 17 before you get behind the wheel. You have to have car insurance. You have to obey posted speed limits. You're not allowed to drink and drive. You can even have your license suspended or revoked...not because you are a felon, but because of non related driving offenses like underage drinking.

And the doubters will always bring up the 2nd Amendment, but never mention it begins with "well regulated". Not to mention the arms that the founders bared were muskets that took up to a minute to reload between shots.

Some of the others will say we need to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but our government has drones. If they want you dead, you're high powered assault rifle isn't going to save you.

And you can say what you want about me without really knowing who I am, but I believe in the 2nd Amendment. Before you bash me and vote me down, I ask only that you tell me what you feel the 2nd Amendment protects. Do we have the right to own a Nuclear Bomb? To extreme? Can I fly around in a fully loaded F-16? No, how about drive around in a tank? Can we own anything the begins with the words "Surface to Air"? A rocket launcher, a grenade thrower? Please tell me where your "line" is. Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your's is right after it?

And I know that guns don't kill people, people kill people. And I know that stricter gun laws won't end gun violence, the same way I know that laws against murder, didn't end murder. Laws against rape, didn't end rape...but does that mean we shouldn't have those laws?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Actually what you said was: I

Actually what you said was:

I will turn them and their friends into swiss cheese using a gun that has STOPING POWER and enough bullets to kill the lot of them without having to reload, even if I miss a lot.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

Would you prefer I give the

Would you prefer I give the rapest/murderer/pedophile/tyrant a fair chance to kill me and have their way with my family?

Is it not "fair" to the criminal if I use superior force to DEFEND my life from those who would snuff it out?

Let me make it plain. I do not want the POS trying to kill me and my family to have a ghost of a chance of success. I want to have overwhelming force so that when he enters my home to satiate his sadistic desires on my loved ones, he leaves as a bullet riddled sponge.

Do I "want" to kill anyone? Nope. But if you are asking me to measure my families lives against some POS criminal in the act of trying to take them, or some gun-grabbing facist who feels I should be a victim with no means to defend my family? I will kill them without a moment's hesitation. Not 1 milisecond.

A pistol with a small magazine is not sufficient to this task. My family is more important to me than your illogical fears or facist motivations.

drones

So the government has drones and fully loaded F-16s. And they use them to slaughter defenseless children around the globe. They have nuclear weapons, and they have used them to destroy the lives of thousands of defenseless Japanese civilians.

The correct question to ask is not "Should the government be able to limit what kinds of arms we have?" but "Should the government have the kinds of arms it has?

So I ask you: "Should the government have the kinds of arms it has?"

When you answer that first and most important question, then the other is answered. This is simply because the answer is "no." And the only way that they will ever be taken away is if we have the ability to take them away.

Yes, if they want one of us killed, it's a done deal. But eventually enough of us may start to think in a reasonable fashion, and then there is a possibility for tyranny to be addressed.

But you need to recognize the tyranny if you want to make any honest progress on your inquiry.

End of that topic.

The Second Amendment: "Well regulated" meant "working well" when the Constitution was amended. They wanted "well regulated" commerce between the states. This means that they wanted commerce to be "unimpeded and working well." They didn't want anything to hinder commerce between states. And they didn't want anything to hinder the formation of an armed militia.

I'm sorry that the language changed and caused you to misunderstand what the second amendment was about. It does not mean that the federal government was supposed to "put restrictions on" the ability to keep and bear arms. In the same way, the writers of the Constitution didn't have in mind putting restrictions on interstate commerce when they said such commerce should be "regulated." This (perhaps now antiquated) use of the word "regulated" is very close in meaning to "regular" as in regular bowel movements. It meant something like the opposite of what you're suggesting.

Final Comment:

So, I've told you what I think the second amendment means. Also, I hope I've pointed you in the right direction with your other argument. The important point is that the military of that time had those same one-shot-at-a-time muskets. And they were only allowed to have those in a standing army in time of declared war for specific actions of *defense*. We have a different situation now in many many ways, but none of those particulars suggest that the access to arms of citizens like me should be further restricted or restricted in any of the ways they are. Those particulars indicate very strongly that the crazed sociopaths running the government and the army should have their activities and access to weapons restricted.

First of all, Thank You. Not

First of all, Thank You. Not to piss everyone else off, but that was one of the first rational and/or non demeaning comments that I've received. I will however argue one point which filters down into all of your other points. I do believe the government should have those weapons. The government has a responsibility to protect it's citizens. If the government didn't have those weapons, it wouldn't be able to protect us and we'd probably be under USSR rule.

That being said, I do have a strong opinion on how those weapons should be used and don't believe that the mere fact of the them having those weapons gives them any right to use them.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

Wrong

The federal governments' only overall duty is to protect our Liberty, which includes the 2nd amendment as written. Period.

jrd3820's picture

Can I just say something really quick?

A few weeks ago, I had some similar questions except I was not proposing any bans. I was just asking what some of the lingo being thrown around by the left meant. I do not have a gun and have little exposure to them over my life. I really did not know and was not proposing anyone handing over their guns.

I remember you being one of the people who answered rationally and calmly and helped me figure some of it out. A lot of people overreacted and CAPPPED OUT ON ME (which gave me a headache lol).

I just wanted to say I appreciated your response there as one of the more informative, calm and helpful ones. I see you are sticking to rationality here also and it is appreciated.

Your views are based on what you see today...

When you ask whether or not we should own full-auto rifles, missles, tanks, or fighter jets you're assumption is that only the military should have these. Our founders didn't want a standing federal military...WE, the milita, the people, are supposed to be this country's military!

Most of us have been desensitized to the fact that after WWII we decided to embark upon the dangerous road of keeping a standing federal military within the U.S. borders.

Now, 50 years later, instead of asking "Isn't it unconstitutional for a federal entity to own a fighter jet and tanks that could be used against the people?" we find Americans asking the exact opposite because your views are based upon your current perception of the world as opposed to the principles of the constitution.

So, the short answer to your question is: Of course we should own everything you listed (state regulated of course)...it's the federal government that shouldn't own them!

I would love to live in the

I would love to live in the Utopia you describe, but I believe that the government needs to be in possession of these weapons. I don't believe however that in the past 50 years that they have had the right to use them. But the country you speak of, doesn't exist. If we our government didn't own these weapons, we would have been long ago been defeated and taken over by countries that do.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

Cyril's picture

What's wrong with a little gun control ?

Here is how I could try to put it the simplest:

problem is... just like taxation, it never remains little.

Never. Ever. Or I misread History. I welcome pointers where gun control or taxation have decreased steadily after strong inception.

Or to put it otherwise, also...

To most people, the old saying often works, too:

Hell is PAVED with good intentions.

Although I'm no citizen, just a foreign immigrant, I can read. Including about historical context. To be able to read the latter is reading between the just two lines of this powerful Amendment for Liberty AND Peace. Just like the section 10 is re: true money, the necessary corner stone to enable prosperity and fairness. The founders' second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, like others, is as beautifully simple as it is profound:

it is one of these fundamental ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, one of its kind, that if one wishes a peaceful AND free society, one MUST make people responsible, including of their own safety and defense.

Responsibility delegation might work with devices, or machines.

In human affairs, History has SHOWN that it only leads to more moral hazard, and eventually... Tyranny of the power against the people.

Government is useful for minimal order but it is only FORCE.

Lookup "DEMOCIDE" and my post on the Daily Paul if you need a refresher about it.

Like FIRE, if you want to keep government under control, you MUST have it as small as possible in its prerogatives.

ESPECIALLY THIS ONE.

Peace.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Actually gun laws have become

Actually gun laws have become more relaxed over time. Gun laws on the books have been allowed to expire. In that same period the dollar has not evolved, money is still money, but guns have become faster and more powerful. And of course the views have changed, specifically from the NRA...in 1934 the president of the NRA stated:

I do not believe in general promiscuous toting of guns. I think it should be sharply restricted and only under license.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

Cyril's picture

In that same period the dollar has not evolved, money is still

"In that same period the dollar has not evolved [1], money is still money [2], but guns have become faster and more powerful [3]."

Really?

Well, some of us beg to differ.

I'm nobody, so to speak, to tell you whether it's time for you to choose between taking the red pill, the blue one, or ... re-read Plato's Allegory of the cave.

I'm only suggesting options. Maybe give a thought to this:

what if 90+ % of YOUR daily life active hours time is made up of LIES or thoroughly engineered DISTRACTIONS (not coming from you, but, say, "the system" all around you) ?

More concretely:

On [1] ... Do you think YOU have real money on YOUR checking account ?

I know I don't on MINE. Hint 1:

http://dotxml.brinkster.net/2012/Misc/G4_Charts.pdf

(I'd like to see the gold backing these stunning charts. Till the last ounce.)

Pay attention. I wrote: "real money". I really DID mean it.

On [2] ... Do you think this nation's economic output and actual resulting assets (aka, GDP) supposedly backing up the Dollar's value in the balance of power of nations' currencies is ACTUALLY what it is reported to be ? Hint 2:

http://www.dailypaul.com/262493/how-would-anyone-make-money-...

On [3] ... do you think the type of guns your average citizens are able to get their hands on is ANYWHERE CLOSE to those in use by the government's special ops-driving agencies ? Hint 3 :

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/02/army-xm25-punisher-bat...

Do you think the government has to worry about using discount coupons to get as many of those as it wants ? Or are your taxes (and mine) -that NEITHER YOU OR I get to decide about, btw- just working fine for them ?

Bottom line question :

Do you still think the REAL threat is in letting the civilian people enjoy their inalienable rights written in the Bill of Rights ? Or don't you think it may be time to question a trend of the last three decades' type of government denying them (people) ALWAYS MANY MORE of those rights, while it is, at the same time, STEADILY OVER-EXPANDING ITS BRUTE FORCE'S EXTENT OF REACH ?

Especially considering the LIE factor I have just recalled with these hints above.

'Hope it helps.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Move to Mexico. That whole

Move to Mexico. That whole place is a gun free zone.

Why are you here? If you cannot understand how fundamentally vital an armed society is to freedom, you are in the wrong place my friend.

250 million dead people, slain by THEIR OWN governments in the last century. Governments are the SINGLE LARGEST FORM OF UNNATURAL HUMAN DEATH. read that over and over and over until it clicks.

Don't think it can happen now? Our government is no in the business of assassinating American citizens. They are turning us into a surveilance state, monitoring every communication we engage in.

They will soon have lethal drones roaming our skies, looking into our homes.

They have secret prisions, they engage in torture.

They have destroyed your right to a trial, a fundamental right won by countless deaths over thousands of years of brutal tyranny in the Magna Carta.

All you have left standing between you and a death camp is that your countrymen are armed to the teeth. Thats it.

And now they want your guns... one innocent step at a time. You better wake the hell up Jack.

Also, if you don't think you need a semi-automatic gun for home defense, than you should go learn something about guns. Your pistol isn't going to do shit when 2 or 3 people break in to rape your wife and kids. You "Might" kill one, but not before he also kills you. Pistols do not have "stopping" power. You can fataly shoot someone, and they will keep shooting back for minutes to hours before they die. In order to stop them, you'll have to empty your entire magazine just to drop one. What are you going to do about his pals while you're fumbling for your spare clip?

My family is protected by a semi-automatic military style rifle with a high capacity magazine so that if anyone breaks into my house, I will turn them and their friends into swiss cheese using a gun that has STOPING POWER and enough bullets to kill the lot of them without having to reload, even if I miss a lot.

It almost sounds like you

It almost sounds like you want somebody to break into your house just so you can use that gun and kill somebody.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

It almost sounds like you're

It almost sounds like you're a fucking troll imposter.

Go away troll.

for the record, I cut and

for the record, I cut and pasted most of this from an earlier comment...

I want my kids to grow up safe. I don't want to be afraid when they go to kindergarten. I don't want to be afraid when they go to the mall, I don't want to be afraid when they go to the movies. I don't want to be afraid when they go to college. I'm sorry, but I don't believe the answer is to do nothing and hope for the best. I also don't think that more guns is the answer to all our questions either. Unfortunately on here, no one is giving alternative solutions and instead they are attacking me and voting me down because I don't want my children to be shot. How does that make me a troll impostor?

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

Do you think leaving them sitting ducks will keep them safer?

Where is there any wisdom in leaving the good guys more vulnerable to the bad guys?

So is your response everyone

So is your response everyone should have a gun? Should I only be allowed to feel safe is by owning and carrying a gun at all times. Is it really horrible of me to want to live in a society where I don't have to constantly be eyeing everyone up wondering if they are going to pull a gun and shoot every up the place. Again, I know, no gun law is going to prevent every gun casualty, I'm just hopeful something can be done to limit it from the current statistics.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

I did not say everyone has to have a gun.

If you do not want one, then you don't have to have one. But infringing on the right of others to bear arms will limit law-abiding citizens more than it will limit the bad guys.

Two days after the Newtown, CT shooting there was a shooting in San Antonio. Everyone in the restaurant and theater did not have a gun, but because someone did, a mass shooting was prevented.
http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.com/2012/12/28/san-antoni...

This gun owner could've stopped a mass shooting, but because concealed carry was illegal, she'd taken her gun out of her purse.
http://beforeitsnews.com/libertarian/2012/12/suzanna-gratia-...

I do not own a gun, but I do understand the importance of the right of people to bear arms.

Limiting that right will not save the children or anyone else from those who seek to harm or oppress. It will only empower the latter.

This isn't fantasy land.

This isn't fantasy land. Guns exist. Criminals have guns. Tyrants exterminate millions of people all over the world, but only when they gain a monopoly on guns.

There is only one solution in a world where guns exist. Make sure that power is balanced. Power corrupts, and if any one group gains power over another, we know from thousands of years of human history what the outcome will be. Lords and serfs. Slaves and masters. Victims and predators. Why do liberals have no capacity to learn and understand history?

As soon as you said: "You sound like you want someone to break into your house so you can kill them with your gun" I knew you could not be taken seriously.

I have young children. No one wants their children involved in a fire fight. If I "wanted" that, id put a gun-free zone outside of my house to invite the criminals in instead of a "Beware of dog" to keep them out.

That said, ill be damned if im going to turn myself and my family into victims at the mercy of whatever murder/rapist/pedophile/government wants to break into my home and do whatever they please, because a few idiots were too afraid of big bad guns to educate themselves and use a bit of basic common sense.

"I will turn them and their

"I will turn them and their friends into swiss cheese using a gun that has STOPING POWER and enough bullets to kill the lot of them without having to reload, even if I miss a lot."

Sorry, but it does sound a little like you'd enjoy it.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

Are you going to enjoy it

Are you going to enjoy it when a few thugs bust in your door, beat your disarmed ass to death and rape and murder your family while you fade out? What are you going to do about it? Call 911 so they can come clean up the mess?

Home invasions are one of the most popular forms of crime these days in all those gun free utopias across the water. The scenario I laid out there just happened a month ago.

If that was my house, you're damned right id enjoy it. But it wouldn't be killing the sadistic POS criminals id enjoy, it would be knowing that my family is safe because I didn't let some pussys use the government as a club to strip me of my ability to keep my children safe.

Do you realize...

that by advocating gun control, you are advocating that armed men use violence against innocent people to deprive them of arms that they already own?

You are advocating that peaceful gun owners, have their property confiscated at gunpoint.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

No,No, No, No, No

No, no, no, no, no....did you even read what I wrote? Background checks. What out of background checks says you have to turn in your fire arm...This is what I'm talking about...No One Is Trying To Take Your Guns. That is not what's on the table. This is what makes any type of conversation so frustrating and people think that gun people crazy. You make this out to be a plot to put you into an interment camp.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

Allow me to enlighten you to something...

...that you obviously are unaware of.

Despite what YOU believe, what YOU desire and what YOU find acceptable, there are men who are diametrically opposite to YOUR beliefs and desires.

YOU can give up all of YOUR rights that you wish, however, YOU may NOT give up MY fundamental liberty. Got it?

Since you seem to be calling for a civil war, have you actually thought it through?

Please realize that there are millions of your fellow Americans who understand that their liberty is natural or God-given, rather than a privilege granted by government. These same millions also understand that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy ruled by the whims and desires of the government, citizen-pussies, collectivists, defeatists or totalitarian majorities.

These same men realize that Amendment II is merely an enumeration of an already existing fundamental liberty, coupled with the effect of being an absolute prohibition on government from infringing upon it, via the 'law of the land'.

These same men will NOT countenance being debarred of military pattern firearms and magazines of sufficient capacity to make them effective in their intended use of thwarting or rolling back tyranny from government.

Knowing this, I must ask you...how may of your fellow peaceful, quiet American men, women and children are you willing to see slaughtered in your desire to see gun-control? Hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, millions?

These same men will not curl up in their basements, waiting on government apparatchiks to come disarm them, so you must realize that these men will fight to prevent being disarmed.

That being known, how many government employees, politicians, police, military and/or bureaucratic apparatchiks are you wanting to see hurt or killed in this same insane pursuit? Hundreds, thousands, hundreds of thousands?

The ultimate goal IS to disarm the American public, your utter failure to grasp this notwithstanding.

Aside from that, you can keep your dirty, collectivist dick-beating hands off other people's liberty. Some men will not concede another inch. Not for background checks, not for registration, not for magazine limitations and certainly not for any military-pattern firearm, aka, 'assault weapon' bans or confiscations.

Seriously, go f-u-c-k yourself, dry, and then stay out of people's life and their liberty. You are a madman.

First of all, very polite and

First of all, very polite and proper. Again, I'll state, I'm not for disarming. I'm not for you giving up what you own. I hope those men you speak of also recognize my inalienable right to life and pursuit of happiness. I hope those men acknowledge my enumerated right to freedom of speech which I enjoy utilizing even if you don't like what I say. If not, whatever you and they have to say is falling of deaf ears, because I refuse to deal with hypocrites let alone those who can't conduct themselves civilly.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

I have never been, nor will I...

...ever be civil to gun-controllers and anti-constitutionalists.

Just so you know.

Why are you bringing up free speech? Apparently you have no better grasp of that aspect of the Bill of Rights that you do Amendment II.

Amendment I is a restriction on Congress, aka the fed-gov, not me. Say what you want and if I choose, I will call you on it.

Anything else, false-liberty dude and gun-controller?

How do you think something like this is enforced?

"Am I really that extreme because I believe the line is right before an automatic rifle which holds a clip with more than 10 rounds and your's is right after it?"

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

I'd love to give an answer to

I'd love to give an answer to this. I don't know the best way for it to be enforced. But just because it's a hard question, I'm not will to throw my hands in the air an give up. I want my kids to grow up safe. I don't want to be afraid when they go to kindergarten. I don't want to be afraid when they go to the mall, I don't want to be afraid when they go to the movies. I don't want to be afraid when they go to college. I'm sorry, but I don't believe the answer is to do nothing and hope for the best. Unfortunately on here, no one is giving alternative solutions and instead they are attacking me and voting me down because I don't want my children to be shot. How does that make me a bad person?

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams

Your fear is *your* problem

Sounds like you just want to control what people have access to because of your own fears (like so many other prohibitionists), and that's completely irrational. It doesn't necessarily make you a "bad person", but it does make you somebody who doesn't mind using government-sponsored violence and coercion to make you feel safer...so maybe it does.

How many times does history have to repeat itself for people to understand the consequences of this?

What about people who feel less safe *because* of gun control? As far as I'm concerned, whatever the government owns, the people should be able to match up.

A signature used to be here!

I fear people driving without

I fear people driving without a license or driving without insurance. Are you fighting against those laws? And I'd love for you to explain to me how worrying about my child's safety is irrational.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.
John Adams