Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards

Patriots Planet - New England Patriots Forums and Message Boards (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Politics and Religion Forum (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Gun Control Breaking it down (http://www.patriotsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=70922)

Darth Despot 12-09-2015 01:37 PM

Gun Control Breaking it down
 
Whenever I am struggling with something I usually try to write down my thoughts to work through things and figure out where I stand. I find myself seeing things I agree with and don't agree with on both sides of this debate so I am going to break down my thoughts here for comments.

The Constitution:

It's a pretty short amendment and rather to the point, So do people have the right to own firearms? Clearly yes they do. But is that right unlimited or not? The Colonials had a right to their muskets, yes but what if they wanted to place cannon on their property, overlooking the town common?

What if I wanted to buy say a fully armed surplus B-17, is that aloud? No, it's not. There are limits. The only question is where do you want to draw the line. Right now I can't own a fully automatic rifle, I can't own grenades, I can't own a rocket launcher, let alone a smart bomb or a tactical nuke.


The "Repression" argument.

OK first things first, I don't care if you have 20 AR-15s, if the US Army shows up at your door and you chose to fight them you and yours will be very dead, very quickly.

Furthermore I am uncomfortable with who gets to make the decision about being repressed and "fighting back". Tim McVeigh was not a Patriot nor a martyr he was a baby killing **** wad coward.



The personal protection argument.

This one holds some water for me. When I watched the video of one of the shooters in Paris I couldn't help but think I I were there, I'd want the ability to return fire. I've had a vision this week of a terrorist walking into a restaurant with an AR-15 and about 10 laser sites settling in on his forehead. There are states where I imagine this could happen.

If someone "Pulls a gun" on me, I think it's a pretty fair assumption I'd be safer if I could match his firepower.




The "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" argument

Mix thoughts here, There are a shit ton of guns in this country and to think you'd be able to collect them is as hopeless as deporting all the undocumented aliens. On the flip side, the argument doesn't really hold up to the experiences in many other countries. You may not be able to eliminate guns but you can severely restrict them and that cuts down on Random violence. I doubt Sandy Hook happens if the kid couldn't lay his hands on legally purchased firearms in his own home.




The Prohibition Argument

Very much related to the above, I can't imagine there being a place where there are no firearms that are "outside the law". It just doesn't work. Even in totalitarian societies there are folks who get possession of weapons outside of the accepted channels.




Common Sense my conclusion

At the end of the day for me there is no such thing as a right that doesn't come with a responsibility. Owning any type of firearm is an awesome responsibility and every gun owner in this country should be required to exercise care to insure that his or her weapon is safe, kept away from children (and any one else not authorized or capable of using it).

I guess I come down as follows:

In this country, do to both tradition and the Constitution, people have the right to own firearms. That said I believe the owning and use of a firearm should require a license to insure people are properly trained and actually capable of exercising both this right and responsibility.

Much like any other right, if you do not exercise care, your right can be restricted or eliminated.

Those are my thoughts

I figure I'll be taking fire from both sides.

Jaric 12-09-2015 02:29 PM

That sounds incredibly reasonable.

Baron Samedi 12-09-2015 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Despot (Post 2298894)
The Constitution:

It's a pretty short amendment and rather to the point, So do people have the right to own firearms? Clearly yes they do. But is that right unlimited or not? The Colonials had a right to their muskets, yes but what if they wanted to place cannon on their property, overlooking the town common?

What if I wanted to buy say a fully armed surplus B-17, is that aloud? No, it's not. There are limits. The only question is where do you want to draw the line. Right now I can't own a fully automatic rifle, I can't own grenades, I can't own a rocket launcher, let alone a smart bomb or a tactical nuke.

I can help offer some insight here, because this was specifically debated when Madison introduced what became the Bill of Rights to the congress.

Two essential clarifications were agreed upon regarding the Second Amendment;

First, "militia" was defined as the whole of the people, except for government officials...meaning anyone employed by government, politician, military, whatever. To defend themselves against tyranny, they must be able to defend themselves against the army.

The second was what defined "Arms", and it was hashed out that arms were "swords, muskets, and all the terrible instruments of the soldier, excepting ordinance." The notion was that the people, in order to be able to defend themselves against a standing army, must be equally armed, but ordinance was excluded for obvious reasons.

Today I would call it "discretionaary" arms, meaning....in a room full of people, with a shooter....can the weapon in question dispatch a single individual in a crowd, without harm to those around him or her?

A bullet can do that, a hand grenade cannot. A .50 caliber can do that, a flamethrower cannot.

To further enlighten this point, and to go back to the "militia", "well regulated" meant basically a group of citizens that were peaceful, and skilled. So....classic gangsters would NOT be "well regulated", but a group of guys running around with AR-15's shooting at targets with no danger to the community would be. Basically, "well regulated" means "not a danger or threat to the rights of others." So "skilled" can mean anything from a highly trained expert, to a common citizen that has some basic marksmanship, so as not to fire indiscriminately, whether on purpose or by accident. A person that has enough skill to reasonably expect to hit what they are shooting at.

Tom Brady would be "well regulated", Peyton Manning, not so much.

Hope that helps.

Baron Samedi 12-09-2015 02:53 PM

Or...as I like to say....

It's best to have a fire extinguisher on hand when there is a kitchen fire, and it's best to have a gun on hand when there is incoming fire.

Baron Samedi 12-09-2015 03:32 PM

Guess I'll put this here, another Nutnfancy vid, that sort of jives with the questions you are posing in the OP. He does a fair job of discussing the very subject you go back and forth on.


anderson 12-09-2015 03:56 PM

To be part of the militia, you had to serve in the militia which was a short term localized service and included training.
The reason it was organized as such was because of the fear of a standing army assuming power through tyranical means.

Baron Samedi 12-09-2015 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderson (Post 2298932)
To be part of the militia, you had to serve in the militia which was a short term localized service and included training.
The reason it was organized as such was because of the fear of a standing army assuming power through tyranical means.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
"Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
Tench Coxe, 1788.

There is an eternity of distance between how today's leftists want to interpret "militia", and what the people who wrote and ratified the amendment intended.

anderson 12-09-2015 04:48 PM

I have my info from analysis of founding father penned texts, not from whichever source you intimate I got it from.
Contrary to popular opinion, I actually do study these things some. And to say that it is a modern view (the collective rights view) is nonsensical. It's been part of the judicial view since the late 1800's and early 1900's, based on founding father correspondance, etc.

Furthermore I think it's also prudent to observe the second amendment in the light of the legal view of self-defense. This view has changed substantially since the time of the founding fathers; where once you had to demonstrate necessity to ward off a lethal attack in order to defend yourself with lethal force, that view has now been replaced with a reasonable belief that a lethal attack is about to happen. Congruent with that change is the doctrine of self-defense as it relates to being armed.

Short and the long is that you won't be able to make a bulletproof (forgive the term) argument for the militia meaning everyone. It's simply not possible and scholars much brighter than both of us combined have spent the past 150 years trying to understand the meaning. There are valid arguments on both sides and you find some compelling and I others.
To me it makes little sense to subscribe to the view that everyone's the militia without further quantifiers, though, since we did have an organized militia at the time and several of the founding fathers used that organization to avoid having to establish a standing army. You'll remember that it wasn't until much later and not without much quarreling we even had a navy.

Baron Samedi 12-09-2015 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anderson (Post 2298963)
It's been part of the judicial view since the late 1800's and early 1900's,

Furthermore I think it's also prudent to observe the second amendment in the light of the legal view of self-defense.

Exactly, in the late 1800's, socialism began to infiltrate the nation and the SJC began ruling against precedent. (Joseph Story)

And, as I pointed out above, the prmary reason for the second amendment is to put the protection of the rights and liberties of the people in the hands of the people. Self defense is only a part of that. They were to protect themselves, their property, and their liberty. The stronger the government, and the standing army, the more impreative it becomes to protect the right to bear arms, by definition, because the people are to be armed in accordance with the potential threat posed by the military. IF the army has machine guns, the people should have machine guns, etc, etc. Excepting ordinance.

patswin 12-09-2015 09:04 PM

The mistake a lot of the gun haters make is they don't treat the 2nd Amendment as a right. How many times have you heard a liberal ask, "please tell me why you ought to be allowed to own an assault rifle, handgun....?"

The answer is because I have a right to bear arms. A right by definition means I can do it and you have to show why I can't. The question is backwards. If I have to justify why then it isn't a right but a privilege. I don't need to justify anything. Period.


This just enrages the gun control crew. In the end this is because they don't see it as a right. They'd never ask why you should be able to run a newspaper because they see freedom of press as an actual right.
( Unless, of course, it was a conservative newspaper)

patswin 12-09-2015 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Despot (Post 2298894)
The Constitution:

It's a pretty short amendment and rather to the point, So do people have the right to own firearms? Clearly yes they do. But is that right unlimited or not? The Colonials had a right to their muskets, yes but what if they wanted to place cannon on their property, overlooking the town common?

What if I wanted to buy say a fully armed surplus B-17, is that aloud? No, it's not. There are limits. The only question is where do you want to draw the line. Right now I can't own a fully automatic rifle, I can't own grenades, I can't own a rocket launcher, let alone a smart bomb or a tactical nuke.


Cannons on the town common, B-17, and such are munitions, not arms, and are not a constitutional right.

deec77 12-09-2015 09:46 PM

I have no issue with guns and laws being disscussed. But then again I feel frank honest discussions can help most issues facing this nation. :shrug_n:

~Dee

Baron Samedi 12-09-2015 10:43 PM

Let me try and throw some food for thought in here....

Let me express some of the frustrations from the perspective of Second Amendment believers.....

1. Statistical evidence of violent crimes demonstrates overwhelmingly that states and cities with strong Second Amendment support have less violent crime, that instituting gun control legislation increases violent crime, and that rolling back gun control reduces violent crime. There is a large dataset. There may be some exceptions, but the body of data is pretty conclusive.

2. Gun control is typically written in a crazy, illogical manner, with language that is vague, because it is written by people who don't know virtually ANYTHING about guns. They literally write laws banning things by the way they look!...not by function.
Examples....in MA they ban flash suppressors, bayonet lugs...bayonet lugs? Noone WANTS a bayonet on their AR's...they are heavy, make the gun harder to aim and carry....and when is the last time anyone was killed with a bayonet?
The only thing that matters is how many bullets come out when you pull the trigger. Any rifle that the answer is "1"....it's just a rifle, regardless of what it looks like. Some look like hunting rifles, some look like military rifles....but functionally there is no significant difference. In fact, a 30-06 is FAR more efficient and dangerous than an AR-15 with .223 or 5.56 caliber...but where are all the calls to ban 30-06's?

3. In MA, you can only have a 10 round magazine. So....when I got my pistol....I would LIKE to have gotten a 9MM pistol, because it is a good, well performing caliber, and a magazine holds 17 rounds. However, since I am limited by law to 10....and only 10 rounds....why go with 9MM when I can go with bigger, more body destroying rounds like .40 or .45ACP? If I can only have 10 rounds regardless, I am going to take rounds that will blow someone out of their shoes with a single shot, rather than one that will just drop him with a fair chance of survival and have more rounds. The law is NOT well thought out at all.

4. These mass shootings occur in "Gun Free Zones" almost exclusively...or at least in places where guns are "not permitted". This isn't an accident or coincidence.....but when is the anti-2nd amendment crowd going to acknowledge a pattern?

5. I can have a Smith & Wesson, or a Sig Sauer, but I can't have Glock? What? They are basically the same sidearm, just different companies. Hell, the ones that are legal are imitations of Glocks in many cases! Is it just because they don't like the name "Glock"?

6. In MA, pistols must have a 10lb pull on the trigger. Anyone who thinks this is safer is a moron. All it does is make the gun harder to aim, so instead of hitting the bad guy, you'll probably hit the floor or someone else because squeezing that trigger at 10 pounds makes the nose of the pistol dive when firing. Who the Hell thought this was a good idea?

7. When will it be time to recognize that there may be other root causes of these mass shootings.....say, for example...social isolation and warped worldview and self image due to too much time on the internet and TV and not enough time with real world social interaction.....or long term side effects of pyschoactive drugs being prescribed to pre-teens to influence their behavior in some way, or God knows what else. Banning guns isn't going to suddenly make sick, deranged individuals healthy, is it?

8. It is already difficult to get a License to Carry, and automatic weapons are already banned. Most gun owners don't object to this or other reasonable and informed measures....but most regulations are written by grossly uninformed and fanatical crusaders who are morons. It's like banning fast cars if they want to prevent speeding, but they only ban models of cars that look fast, so they go around banning Pontiac Fieros and Honda CRV's painted red. It's insane and frustrating.

9. Most gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment have a reverence for the Constitution and love of their country and fellow man that far exceeds the gun control crowd. Generally speaking, they are the most reliable and patriotic people you will ever meet, many are genuine American heroes who risked their lives to serve their country, maybe lost friends or family along the way, and they get treated with an attitude that they are criminals, or crazy, or at least potential criminals and maniacs. It is insulting and sad that they get treated like dirt by people who never risked a hair on their head for anyone or anything to serve the cause of country and fellow man. The beneficiaries of the sacrifices many 2nd Amendment supporters abuse and squander the freedoms they enjoy by spitting on those that keep and protect those freedoms. It's like Viet Nam all over again, with soldiers coming home o be spit on and called baby killers by the people who never left home and never suffered the pains of sacrifice. They live in fear and terror of all things, guns, global warming, terrorism, swine flu, you name it. Fear of everything. Fear of freedom and Liberty as guaranteed by the Constitution. For people who actually served to suffer the derision and insults of scared little sheep like that is a shame. A damn shame.

So...those are my feelings, but they probably reflect the feelings of a large majority of 2nd Amendment supporters to a greater or lesser degree.

I thought maybe presenting sentiment from one perspective rather than argue facts may add something.

Still love my fellow man, no matter how ignorant or sheepish they may be. It's just that they represent a danger to my liberty and rights guaranteed to me by the founding document of my country.

Patriots-Lifer 12-10-2015 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Despot (Post 2298894)

Common Sense my conclusion

At the end of the day for me there is no such thing as a right that doesn't come with a responsibility. Owning any type of firearm is an awesome responsibility and every gun owner in this country should be required to exercise care to insure that his or her weapon is safe, kept away from children (and any one else not authorized or capable of using it).

I guess I come down as follows:

In this country, do to both tradition and the Constitution, people have the right to own firearms. That said I believe the owning and use of a firearm should require a license to insure people are properly trained and actually capable of exercising both this right and responsibility.

Much like any other right, if you do not exercise care, your right can be restricted or eliminated.

Those are my thoughts

I figure I'll be taking fire from both sides.

I could not agree with you more. I am a gun owner as I do hunt from time to time. I only hunt what I will eat. Each of my children went through firearms safety training. If you own one you should have the training on proper handling and use. I also have no issue with registering and licensing. After all you have to do all of that to own and drive a car.

Patriots-Lifer 12-10-2015 10:39 AM

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publishes statistics on firearm deaths and the death rate, which would be a fairer measure in comparing states of various populations. The death rate is the number of deaths per 100,000 people. The CDC also gives age-adjusted death rates, since such rates are influenced by the age of the population. This levels the comparison between different groups.
For 2013, the 10 states with the highest firearm age-adjusted death rates were: Alaska (19.8), Louisiana (19.3), Mississippi (17.8), Alabama (17.6), Arkansas (16.8), Wyoming (16.7), Montana (16.7), Oklahoma (16.5), New Mexico (15.5) and Tennessee (15.4).
The 10 states with the lowest firearm age-adjusted death rates were, starting with the lowest: Hawaii (2.6), Massachusetts (3.1), New York (4.2), Connecticut (4.4), Rhode Island (5.3), New Jersey (5.7), New Hampshire (6.4), Minnesota (7.6), California (7.7) and Iowa (8.0).
Firearm deaths, however, include suicides, and there are a lot of them. In 2013, there were a total of 33,636 firearm deaths, and 21,175, or 63 percent, were suicides, according to the CDC. Homicides made up 11,208, or 33 percent, of those firearm deaths. The rest were unintentional discharges (505), legal intervention/war (467) and undetermined (281).
Homicide data for 2013 don’t give us a clear picture of homicides only by firearm; however, 70 percent of homicides for the year were by firearm. The 10 states with the highest homicide rates were: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, South Carolina, New Mexico, Missouri and Michigan. That lists includes six states that also have the highest firearm death rates.
The 10 states with the lowest homicide rates are: North Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Utah, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Oregon.
The number of homicides that occurred in the first three states were so low that their death rates were zero. Wyoming is an interesting case, because it has one of the highest firearm death rates but a homicide rate of zero.
What role do gun control laws play in these statistics? It’s difficult to say. One news report that compiled these same CDC numbers on firearm death rates, by 24/7 Wall Street and published by USA Today, listed several reasons besides gun laws that these states might have high rates of gun deaths (suicides included). Many of the states also have higher rates of poverty, lower educational attainment and perhaps more rural areas that make getting to a hospital in time to save someone’s life difficult.
But that report also noted weaker gun laws were common among the states with higher gun death rates: “In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun,” reporter Thomas C. Frohlich wrote.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Patriots Planet is not affiliated with the NFL or with the New England Patriots. The views and opinions on this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the owners and/or operators of this forum and website.