Gun Control

[BrotherBuford]

There are more gun rights groups than the NRA, all with slightly different takes on how to handle things. The NRA is just the most well known. Others include JPFO, GOA, CCRKBA, etc. And that's just at the national level. Many states have state-level orgs that work on their own state's issues; Virginia has VCDL, of which I am a member. A good state org can get lots of things done locally; many of the national orgs are far removed from that. VCDL has done a lot of good work in the past two decades in VA, getting anti-gun stuff off the books and getting good pro-gun laws in place, as well as taking localities to task via lawsuit, threat of lawsuit, or helping with lawsuits when they decide it's okay to do what they feel like rather than follow state law.

[Rani]

I hate it when Democrat and Republican get thrown around in debates like this one. The party lines are so blurred, and most "normal" people don't associate with either party... they pick and choose from what they want/like, and often times choose from the "lesser of two evils".

That being said, I agree with many of the posts thus far. Decent, law-abiding citizens are the ones that get hurt from gun control laws. People who are looking to break the law with their guns aren't going to obtain them through legal avenues, they're going to get them from a friend of a friend's third cousin's nephew's sister's husband's friend or through the black market. While I personally don't own a pistol, I do own a shotgun and a .30-06 rifle, both of which I use to hunt. Most of the hippie liberals who want to ban guns forget about the whole killing your food thing, they'd rather see you eat grass and tree bark.

There are too many "do-gooders" out there who want to make the world a better place, sticking their noses in other people's business and taking away rights one issue at a time. Those types of people are the ones the constitution was designed to protect us against.

Okay, offended over here...... I happen to be a hippie do-gooder who's also a Buddhist and yet I'm anti-gun control. My view is arm everybody, the black hats will end up offing each other over stupid crap and the rest os us would be a lot safer. Criminals use a gun not only for ego but because they know most people they victimize don't own guns. Ergo arm everybody and they'll think twice about that helpless victim thing. I'm also a carnivore. I like tree bark and grass just fine so long as it's in my front lawn. I grew up hunting, and although I don't hunt any longer it's simply because I have this really strange Native American idea about not taking what there is already plenty of. There's plenty of meat at the grocery store, no need to run out and kill your own for sport. I consider that wasteful and disrespectful of Nature in general, unless a cull is required. I vote Democrat, but my favorite politician of all time was S.I. Hayakawa who when asked about his opinion of keeping the Panama Canal said "I think we ought to keep it. We stole it fair and square." Which has nothing to do with anything except to point out that when it comes to politics, if you don't have a sense of humor about it, you probably shouldn't be allowed at the ballot box.

'Rani

[Scoop]

anti-gun control here. fiveseven at the range is fun as hell

[GreatPigHookah]

Here's some thoughts on gun control. The gun control organizations want you to believe certain things. They want you to believe guns are one of the biggest problems we face. They want you to believe that "assault" weapons should be banned because they are so dangerous. They want you to believe the founding fathers didn't mean for the 2nd ammendment to be interpreted the way it is.

Just over 10,000 homicides were commited with firearms in 2007 according to the department of Justice's Bureau of Statistics. That's out of a population of 300 Million people. That's far fewer than most would believe, especially considering the nationwide media blitz that occurs when some idiot shoots someone. You sure don't get that kind of coverage when one of the 45,000 people that die in car wrecks each year bites the dust, and those deaths are no less meaningfull. Never mind the hundreds of thousand that die from cancer. But we're willing to live (and die) with cancer apparently. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to save lives where we can, but our priorities don't seem to be in order here, even when you throw in gun suicides and accident numbers.

Of the 10000 homicides in 2007, RIFLES, of ALL types, accounted for 450 of them. And that includes the evil "assault" weapons that people are so scared of. "Assault", btw, is an action - a verb, it's not a noun. Oddly enough, almost TWICE as many people were murdered without a weapon of any type (bare hands, kicking, shoving) than with rifles. So why are people wasting so much time and effort trying to ban "assault" weapons again? Hhhmmm.

Why does the constitution include an article to forbid the government from infringing on our right to bear arms? Notice the way that last sentence was worded. The Bill of Rights, doesn't grant you rights. It never has. Read the wording of the document closely sometime. The founders believed certain rights were possessed by all, reguardless of government. The Bill of Rights simply gaurentees our government won't try to infringe upon these rights we already have by our very existence. I believe like the founding fathers. Our governement is getting farther and farther from what they laid out and believed. If they make guns illegal next week, I won't give mine up. It's a right I have that no government can take away. Ever. Here's how we know what the founding fathers REALLY thought...by their words and actions. Read these quotes and tell me the founding fathers didn't believe ordinary citizens shouldn't keep and bear arms for their own protection and to keep check on our government:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." — George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …" — Richard Henry Lee (the man who made the motion in the continental congress calling for independence from England) writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …" — Samuel Adams, quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." — George Washington, First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." — Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." — Richard Henry Lee, American Statesman, 1788

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation,that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" — Patrick Henry, American Patriot

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … " — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."— Thomas Jefferson, Third President of the United States

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." — Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950)

[Sonthert]

That sums up my perspective pretty well. If you trust the government/police/military with guns but not the average citizen, what does that say about your society? It means you have an irrational populus and the government doesn't represent the people, which it must in its fundamental definition of a social contract. Looking at the track record of our government over the past 20 years...I wouldn't trust the government with quicklight charcoal let alone guns...so do the gun control people think that the government is smiley wonderful? Do you think we should ban all guns in the U.S. (which might be an answer, but a very radical one). The solution is of course, to let everyone who wants one, own a gun.

I also think laws restricting ownership of automatic and semi-automatic weapons are bad laws.

I personally don't own a gun because I'm not prepared to accept the responsibility of owning a gun.

I admit, the idea that guns are here to stop a tyrannical government, whether foreign or domestic is a little arcane, it hasn't happened in the United States that we've needed them for that purpose, but the point is if we don't have them when we need them, we're in big trouble. Can the gun-control people agree with the need of guns in case the government goes rogue on us and starts taking away our rights? Saying its not going to happen or it hasn't happened or its so infrequent that its irrelevant seems to be plausible on some level, but for the same logic, why own a fire extinguisher? Why have insurance? Why keep canned food and emergency water at home? Guns are the fundamental preparation for the disaster of tyranny.

[Rani]

Should you really want to know why certain branches of our government are in favor of gun control, read the actual text of the Declaration of Independence:

www.archives.govMarch 18, 2009 The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Our nation was founded on insurrection. It was determined by the people themselves that their government was unjust and did not honor the people or the people's desires and the took up their guns and went to war against their government. Successfully. Surely no one can refute that our people's history of overthrowing unjust government makes government nervous indeed about the existence of an armed populace. Especially when our very Declaration on which this nation was founded says it is our duty to overthrow government that does not represent us to what we consider our best interest.

I'm what you might call a peaceful anarchist. I believe our government is out of control and needs to change. I do not believe taking up assualt weapons against our government is the answer. However, I do not trust them to not take up weapons against us when we try to change our government to better serve all people equally. And because of this I will never agree to gun control. I would rather own illegal guns than to lie down and let them disarm the population.

'Rani

[Sonthert]

As I like to say, sheep are much easier to lead to slaughter than wolves; wolves might be executed, but they aren't slaughtered.

Who said 'Blood is the natural fertilizer of the Tree of Liberty?' Jefferson proposed that the people should stage a revolution every 20 years. I think that might be extreme, but it might be prudent to open the two party system up somewhat. Add some parties that aren't 'isms' but practical statesmen.

[HellCat]

Its simple, when there is gun control, a lot more innocent people die.

A good example: Firearm Free Zones (i.e. schools) Virginia Tech. Would that many students have been slaughtetered by that son of a bitch if there was an armed student in that horrific classroom that would have been able to shoot back and hopefully kill the murderer.

Cross fire?? Cross fire?? This is the worst and most sickening argument the gun control morons have. What would you rather have, a lot of dead innocent people or as least dead innocents as possible? Yes, theres a chance of cross fire, but OMFG there would be a dead murderer as well!!! And a whole lot less dead innocents!!!

Firearm Free Zones are just a big fat invitation for psychopaths, because they know they won't get shot back at. It a perfect, target rich environment for those lunatic fuckers.

Also, the government can control an unarmed population very easily. Think about this. Look up the Weimar Republic before ww2. Edited March 20, 2009 by HellCat

[arhutch]

if everyone was armed, someone would be stupid to try anything because 30 people around them are packin heat.

guns rule!!!!

[Charley]

ok this is how i see gun control i myself am a gun advocate.

i feel safer with my guns around than i do without them. 1. because i know how to use them safely and effectively. 2 everyone in my house also knows how to do this. 3. I have had to call the police to my house twice in my lifetime and the first time took over 1 hour for them to arrive and the second was about 35 minutes.


guns will never go away. if I as a law abiding citizen have my guns taken away that just means I will be an easier target for the scumbags of the world who do not follow the laws and still have there guns.


think of it this way a madman takes a gun to a bank 5,6,7,....ppl may die. a madman takes a gun to a school and 9,10,11...ppl may die. A madman takes a gun to an NRA convention and 1 person dies.

i do however believe in gun education. proper storage usage and mantinace of guns is key to preventing accidents. If a gun accident occurs it is not the guns fault it is the stupid sob who didn't store it correctly with the proper safety measures to make sure his six year old couldn't get to it. or the dumbass who thinks a bottle of jack is essential hunting equipment.

[neil555688]

ok this is how i see gun control i myself am a gun advocate.

i feel safer with my guns around than i do without them. 1. because i know how to use them safely and effectively. 2 everyone in my house also knows how to do this. 3. I have had to call the police to my house twice in my lifetime and the first time took over 1 hour for them to arrive and the second was about 35 minutes.


guns will never go away. if I as a law abiding citizen have my guns taken away that just means I will be an easier target for the scumbags of the world who do not follow the laws and still have there guns.


think of it this way a madman takes a gun to a bank 5,6,7,....ppl may die. a madman takes a gun to a school and 9,10,11...ppl may die. A madman takes a gun to an NRA convention and 1 person dies.

i do however believe in gun education. proper storage usage and mantinace of guns is key to preventing accidents. If a gun accident occurs it is not the guns fault it is the stupid sob who didn't store it correctly with the proper safety measures to make sure his six year old couldn't get to it. or the dumbass who thinks a bottle of jack is essential hunting equipment.

nice, that's going on facebook

[mustang_steve]

OK to those that wish to remove firearms from law abiding people....how will we be GUARANTEED protection in our own homes?

Police? Think again: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

That ruling stated that police have NO obligation to protect an individual.

Now, how will they be protected. If you cannot answer this, then you need to stop your campaign to disarm lawful citizens, as you will cause a tremendous harm to the American people without benefit.

If you want some humor, look at Mexico and how their strict anti-gun policies have failed. And before anyone fires off Sen. Clinton's quotes...she misworded the statement that 90% of tracable guns came from the US...key word "tracable"...in tuth, that is less than 17% of the guns found (since many had no serial numbers and were thus "untracable")....and most of those were actually handguns or NFA restricted items. That means they came from police or military in the US....so much for citizen leaks.

And before the "but but the drug cartels" kicks in....guess what? That's the same thing the anti-gun-control activists are talking about....criminals will have the guns.

The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. We should be using the facts presented from all these other nations with heavy gun control to see how it really works....and you'll find it simply doesn't.

If an action does not produce the intended results, it simply should not be done. Edited April 4, 2009 by mustang_steve

[ilikemyusername]

guns are gay, get an axe

[Vladimir]

I think one of the biggest problems with having guns in homes with children is that parents don't teach their children how to be safe around them rather than just telling them to stay away and to not touch them.

+1!!!!

My dad is/always was a cop and so this was never an issue in my home. This is a two fold approach. First off by educating the children you take away the "object of desire" (all kids are going to try and find what you hide from them) and if they do get to it, they know (even if only basics like finger off the trigger) how to be safe around it.

Gun control is one of those issues like smoking taxes and bans where you have to stand up and say... "Even if this is GOOD for us, is it RIGHT?" And the answer is emphatically NO! Life is precious, but so is liberty. Banning smoking and banning guns may save lives- but that wouldn't make it RIGHT!!!

I just threw down a grand to get my hands on an AR (Oly Arms K16) before they get taken from me. What a sad day this is where we have to live in fear that our liberties and rights, which are supposed to be unalienable, could be stripped from us at any moment!!!

[Mndgame]

I still don't get why we just don't tax guns into oblivion.




Oh wait.. Republicans and Christians, I forgot.

I might be misreading this but im taking as your pro gun control.

Oh yeah guns definitely need to be controlled. We are taxing tobacco to pay for children's healthcare when we should just tax these items people have sick obsessions over. Just like Chris Rock said.

Yeah, not like tobacco.

We could just tax cars, they kill a lot more people in the U.S. than guns do. Maybe we should just increase taxes on gasoline. Tax those cars into oblivion. Just tax items that people have sick obsessions with. They just kill too many people. Its always amusing when people propose to tax things that they don't like...like tobacco (or guns). I don't see a lot of pro-tobacco people advocating increases in tobacco taxes. Perhaps if you don't like increased tobacco taxes, you should be a little more reluctant to propose other things get taxed, just because you don't like them. I think that opinion set is why our government sees fit to cut into our liberties because people who don't agree with them like the idea of preventing other people from using/doing them. If people would practice the time-honored democratic process of tolerance of other people who we don't agree with, things might be better in the U.S. for everyone instead of different groups of people going after other peoples interests/hobbies or beliefs.

Of course, I guess some people will say that any given thing is a sick obsession...its a matter of opinion...whether they belive in the golden rule "Do into others as you would have them do onto you." If a person wants to infringe on other people's liberties, they should be prepared to have their liberties infringed on.


For the record, I'm an atheist and a democrat. Not a christian nor a republican. I'm also opposed to gun control. On the other hand, I don't make generalizations about other groups of people...that definitely sounds like a republican to me...if I were inclined to believe in making generalizations about people.

Not sure why in all of your posts you compare guns to cars as that analogy isn't really applicable as guns have one primary function and cars have the primary function of transportation not killing and are a necessity good for everyday life. That being said I'm against gun control as well. As shown in this thread, people get extremely protective of their guns and outlawing them would end up like prohibition. If everyone is for constitutional rights and freedom you should be AGAINST the war on drugs as well. Legalize ALL drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine, LSD! etc... Not only is it a freedom we should have, but it would save A LOT of money.

[Sonthert]

I do love the gun-control people who say something to the effect of "The 2nd Amendment is a relic from colonial times, its not necessary in Modern America." Since the idea was to protect ourselves from the tyranny of governments, whether domestic or foreign. Tyranny must be obviously be extinct, by their logic...yeah...I'll buy that.

Like I always say, a gun is like a fire extinguisher. You might never need it, but if you do, you'll be glad you have one.

If we assume that prison or the death penalty has a deterrent effect, would it not follow that an armed populace deters governments from taking liberties and trying to seize too much power?