Gun Control points

[Ricochet]

GS, I'm developing my thoughts and argument for gun rights.

An argument I've heard is, "... i think the underlying fallacy in this argument is where she compares pro-gun control legislation to anti-2nd amendment. I personally have no problem with gun ownership but we need to redraw the lines of what is reasonable just as I can currently cannot own a bazooka or rocket launcher we need to limit what is reasonable for people to own. The technology advances made in weaponry since the drafting of the constitution is astronomical. I think when we invoke the words of the constitution we need to remember these words from Thomas Jefferson: "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."'

I think the points are valid but I have my own opinion and would like yours so as to better refine my thought process and response. I appreciate any response.

R

[Ricochet]

Gun Control points

Specifically, a reply to the quoted argument.

[SouthTX1911]

Gun Control points

I agree that common sense would dictate that laws need to change with technology. I agree that normal "citizens" shouldn't necessarily have access to high explosives and so on, but we must be VERY careful of our's and others' definition of "reasonable" so as not to misconstrue the purpose of the Constitution. The word "reasonable" mean many different things to many different people especially when we are talking about any kind of weapon.

Well stated and thanks for your input.

[Ricochet]

Gun Control points

The quoted part is not my perspective but someone I am discussing this with. In my mind, the argument is flawed because bazookas (while it might be fun) have no recreational purpose whereas AR style weapons do. To me there is a clear line there. Plus, we as citizens are not an active military so the need, right this second, to own something to that extent is not there. Obviously statistics and facts blow away the argument for gun control. That's a fact. But, how and where do we draw the line of the right to bear the type of arms able to defend against tyranny?

[HARDWAY78]

Hi explosives (grenades, bazookas and the like) cause collateral damage. With an AR or any rifle you can choose your target and cause no harm to anything else.

Also, bad guys exist and a hi power semi-auto rifle is an efficient means of stopping threats. Really it's safer then a hunting rifle, becaise the rounds tend to stop in the bad guy and not keep on going even with regular soft points. My 30-06 will just keep on going.

[westtexducks]

The quoted part is not my perspective but someone I am discussing this with. In my mind, the argument is flawed because bazookas (while it might be fun) have no recreational purpose whereas AR style weapons do. To me there is a clear line there. Plus, we as citizens are not an active military so the need, right this second, to own something to that extent is not there. Obviously statistics and facts blow away the argument for gun control. That's a fact. But, how and where do we draw the line of the right to bear the type of arms able to defend against tyranny?

I will have to disagree. You think we would have defeated the british if they had tanks and bazookas and machine guns and all we had were little semi auto AR-15s? I don't think we would have stood a snowballs chance in H ell. When we fought the british many of the weapons used were the personal firearms of the people shooting them. The military and civilians were on equal terms. Only thing that separated them was one had cannon. But I am sure if the farmers had the money and want for a cannon they could have gotten one.

I personally think the whole line that is already drawn is bull hawkey. I am personally against the whole no machineguns, supressors, or any of the really good fun stuff being off limits unless you pay the gubberment lots of money first. Should be able to just by at your leisure if you have the money and can pass a background check just like any other gun or device.

[HARDWAY78]

The police are called when something bad happens to the people. They are sort of a middle man and rarely stop a bad action. I like them there, however, I would prefer the public have the capability of protecting themselves.... I still think you can trust most people to do the right thing.

& a side thought for the AR-15 is that they are much easier for the average person to use without them flinching due to recoil verses a hunting rifle.

[Outback77]

1 round vs 30 only difference is how long it takes to reload. Crazy people will do crazy things with anything they get their hands on. Gun, knife or stick...jmo

[Ricochet]

Gun Control points

I will have to disagree. You think we would have defeated the british if they had tanks and bazookas and machine guns and all we had were little semi auto AR-15s? I don't think we would have stood a snowballs chance in H ell. When we fought the british many of the weapons used were the personal firearms of the people shooting them. The military and civilians were on equal terms. Only thing that separated them was one had cannon. But I am sure if the farmers had the money and want for a cannon they could have gotten one.

I personally think the whole line that is already drawn is bull hawkey. I am personally against the whole no machineguns, supressors, or any of the really good fun stuff being off limits unless you pay the gubberment lots of money first. Should be able to just by at your leisure if you have the money and can pass a background check just like any other gun or device.

Look I'm the LAST person to want to limit gun use, but I don't think I need to stand on common ground with military mite to the army. Otherwise I'd drive a tank to work. Do I need that type of weapon? No. Would I use one if under persecution of a tyrannical government to save life? Without hesitation. I don't mind fully auto weapons.

[Ricochet]

Gun Control points

1 round vs 30 only difference is how long it takes to reload. Crazy people will do crazy things with anything they get their hands on. Gun, knife or stick...jmo

That the idea of banning 30 round clips is asinine. Simply people without a clue scared about something they don't understand.

[db@100]

Well if this is about what we need verses what we don't need then lets look at this. It is against the law to drive over 80mph on roads so ban all automobles that will go over 80. Now just how far would that go in congress? We have these things because some people enjoy owning them, just like owning an ar..some people like them.

[HARDWAY78]

Yeah & I would argue that there are instances, albeit rare, where you will need to exceed 80 mph. For example, you're at work & the school calls to tell you that your kid had an accident and had to go to the emergency room... 80 mph would not be nearly fast enough. There are instances where 30 rounds may not be enough.

I live two streets away from an elementary school. Both of my kids attended that school and my soon to be born daughter will more than likely attend as well. I work nights and am well armed. If something happened I believe I could beat local police to that location. I would want more than 30 rounds to engage the crook. I'm well trained and fairly fresh in my knowledge. I can do better with an AR-15 than most. I am an asset in a high stress situation. What's the point in limiting someone like me?

[TomB]

Another take is to apply the other side's arguments on limiting our 2nd amendments rights to the first amendment. The founders could not have imagined the technology we use now for expressing our first amendment rights. And, the left will not in the least tolerate any limits, regardless of how destructive they are. If they really want to limit or change the 2nd amendment the framers provided a mechanism. It has been done before, to our societal benefit. Try and change the 2nd amendment if they feel that strongly against it, but don't pick and choose parts you want to enforce or chip away at its true meaning.

[bowhuntntxn]

Since our current for of government was founded some 237 years ago, there has never been a need for the citizens to defend against a tyrannical government, as the constitution was written. And there will not be for a very long time in the future. Nor has there been an attempted invasion of our shores to overthrow our nation.

So the argument that they are needed to defend against invasion or the government is nothing more than a shield used by radical pro gun forces to keep thier guns, with no limits, regardless of the practical application of it. Is there a need for a hi cap mag? NO, but they sure are fun to have around when you want to burn off a lot of rounds quickly. Is there a NEED for telescoping stocks and military based tac weapons owned by private citizens? NO, but because they are firearms then they should be allowed.

Before I get mislabeled I would like to point out that I am 100% for responsible gun ownership by every person legally allowed to own a gun. I am also trying to be practical here too. Limiting the capacity of a magazine, or not allowing a telescoping stock is not the same as confiscating weapons. Never has been, never will be. And NO ONE is going to come into your house to check for compliance, regardless of what the panic stricken fear mongers might tell you. BUT just like if you get caught driving 80, emergency or not, you will be reprimanded for an illegal action. So if hi cap mags and telescoping stocks are prohibited for sale, and you buy one illegally, it is and should be considered the same crime as buying illegal drugs IMO. You know it is not allowed, but choose to do it anyway, then when caught you should be held accountable for your actions.

The how, what and why definitions for guns, gun pieces, and gun ownership will be determined by people who were elected by a majority of votes by the people the represent. So it is up to the people they represent to make their voice heard as a collective, and make sure the person representing them understands that the voice has been spoken in unison, and with much conviction. If the majority voice fails to make themselves heard, then they deserve nothing more than what they were willing to speak up about.

Changes are coming. Make no mistake about it. They are unstoppable, but not unable to be modified before implemented. So rather than rely on a group to speak for you(NRA), you should speak for yourself, collect a group of like minded people, and speak as a group, and find other like minded groups to make a very powerful force, and very loud unified voice.

[Tommyh]

reinvent the wheel, when the NRA already has teh apparatus in motion is not a smart move. Throw your weight with the money and mass that is already in play and make the wedge bigger that will be driven into the AWB 2.0. grass roots is nice, but make use of what is already there.

the reason for the need of hi powered rifles?

For the Founders, the militia arose from the posse comitatus, constituting the people as a whole and embodying the Anglo-American idea that the citizenry is the best enforcer of the law. "A militia when properly formed," wrote Richard Henry Lee in his Letters From the Federal Farmer, "are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." From its origins in Britain, the posse comitatus (meaning to be able to be an attendant) was generally understood to constitute the constabulary of the "shire." When order was threatened, the "shire-reeve," or sheriff, would raise the "hue and cry," and all citizens who heard it were bound to render assistance in apprehending a criminal or maintaining order. The Framers transferred the power of calling out the militia from local authorities to the Congress.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/55/militia-clause