has obama taken your guns!

[Gypsiyee]

yeah I'm aware of that, but the intention is still the same, no?

when someone picks up a knife, their intention isn't always to stab. when someone picks up a gun, the intention *is* always to shoot at shit. yes?

I guess my point is that they're not really comparable in that sense.

[Harrison]

I fail to see a disconnection between the comparisons.

Cutting paper or carving is the same as shooting a target. There is no real distinction between the two that you're trying to create for the sake of furthering your agenda.

[Gypsiyee]

The distinction between the two is that one has a functional purpose in daily life whereas the other does not...

If you want to compare a gun to a football, fine - that's comparing sport to sport.

[Spazz]

Harrison beat me to it but your right about one thing. Its purpose is to shoot and what you shoot at dictates if its a weapon or not. Your prolly not aware as well but theres a gangle of people out there and collect and never put a round through them. It is a tool gyps and how it is used determins if its a weapon or not. Apply it to a hammer a car and a kinfe. Guns make people emotional and emotion often defies logic.

[Arlos]

Um, Spazz, I specifcally stated that the cost should be fixed to only cover the costs involved with giving the test. I can't imagine that would be more than 10-20 dollars, which is a tiny fraction of the cost of the firearm itself, and that would remain constant, as the cost of both would rise with inflation. If you cannot afford the test, how are you even going to afford ammunition with which to FIRE the gun?

Also, I have no major emotional involvement with this issue. I was RAISED with guns. My father used to go deer hunting and duck hunting before I was born. We have an old civil-war era carbine that comes from my Great Grandfather, I believe. My first time around in college, my junior year when I was out of the dorms, I took one of my dad's shotguns with me, and went out shooting with friends several times thereafter. I've gone to firing ranges several times to shoot pistols as well. (Oddly, I found I was more accurate with a giant hand cannon like a 44 magnum than I was with a beretta 9mm, in my limited use of both). I took shooting lessons with the Boy Scouts on my way to getting the firearms merit badge.

So, I am *HARDLY* vastly emotionally opposed to the idea of firearms as a whole. What I do NOT care for is concealed carry permits becoming freely and readily available, nor do I buy for 1 nanosecond the argument that only the fact that people are armed keeps the army or the government from turning around and enslaving us in some sort of totalitarian regime.

But owning guns to hunt with (even though I have no interest in hunting myself), or for home protection (shotguns are VASTLY superior to pistols for this), or just for having fun going out and shooting, by all means, but be *SAFE* with them. Gun safety *IS* something I am concerned about. My little brother was nearly killed at 2 years old by kids firing their rifles in an unsafe fashion. When me and my brother were very young, and too young to know gun safety properly, my father made absolutely sure nothing could happen by disassembling the firing mechanisms of all of his guns and storing/hiding them in 3 separate places, with the ammunition in a 4th.

But, as I said, any safe owner wants to own guns, by all means, that is their right. I seek only to inhibit those who would be UN-safe.

-Arlos

[Evermore]

out of curiosity, spazz - what else is a gun used for, if not a weapon?

a knife is used in cooking and preparing meals.. that I know. knives are used in homes every day for purposes no other tool can accomplish.

a gun has one purpose. every time it's used, it's intended to puncture the target. does it have a functional use I'm missing?

they are also collectable and can be decorative also. Some even have History attached to them.

i see this thread heading into a 2nd amendment arguement again.

[Harrison]

nor do I buy for 1 nanosecond the argument that only the fact that people are armed keeps the army or the government from turning around and enslaving us in some sort of totalitarian regime.

I somewhat agree with this as well with my other statement. I just don't like the idea of completely disarming the populace one bit. It has been shown time and again throughout history, as a very, very bad idea.

[Spazz]

Well arlos all i can say is i wish i lived in a neighborhood where guns werent part of every day life. I know people who carry for protection and i know people who prolly carry for criminal reasons. Knowing both types is why the biggest issue concerning guns to me is conceal and carry. I would not take away peoples rights to defend them selves from the scum that inhabits our countries cities. To have a problem with that right arlos is how i know your not in touch with the reasons we have a second. The 2 has nothing to do with hunting arlos and you can look back intime and see that.

[ClakarEQ]

Spazz, even if she had a gun, she'd still be raped and then her gun would be stolen LOL and probably pistol wiped for good measure, then probably shot with her own gun to put the cherry on top. /sarcasm off

Anyway, I'm all for gun control, I don't have an issue with folks and guns, at least normal ones, but I also don't fear our government and the last time the 2nd amendment was applied in reality was, what the civil war? I find it comical that folks actually believe, I mean really believe we will ever overthrow our government by using force, that is too fucking funny. I also find it even more comical that folks would actually use their weapon against our own armed forces, again laugh. I was called paranoid for not wanting to do too much on line posting with my real life details, what kind of paranoia do you call folks like "omg the gov knocking on my doors, wantin my gunz, ok beeches, com-n-get-em".

BTW, Harri, you're about to join the armed forces, you realize what could be on the other end of the rifle you're holding, perhaps a US citizen, I hope you're prepared for that.

I'm sure this will go all kinds of good places /laugh

[Harrison]

That idea has already crossed my mind. I don't take any of this lightly.

[Nusk]

i feel myself agreeing with arlos

just because you have an absolute constitutional right does not mean that you also have the right to be irresponsible with that right

all voters should know why they vote for someone and not just be cause they want change

all firearm owners should show they are able to use a firearm responsibly
and no i dont think registration should be required

[Tossica]

Guns are for pussies.

[Lueyen]

Personally, I think that, given the 2nd amendment, everyone has the right to own guns.

But, just like freedom of speech is limited in that you cannot directly advocate violence, yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or threaten the president, etc. because of the health risks involved, there needs to be SOME limit on the right to own firearms, as improperly handled, stored and cared for, they DO represent a risk.

I would propose the following, then:

1) Any non-felon and non-mentally-ill person may buy and own firearms.

2) Anyone wishing to take firearms home must pass a written safety exam, as well as a practical one. These exams should cost no more than is necessary to cover the cost of giving the exam, and may be given at either police stations or licensed gun ranges, etc. Note that no class shall be necessary to take the test, as many people get adequate training from relatives, parents, etc. Also, veterans and honorably quit ex-police are exempt from this requirement, as they will have had FAR more training than is necessary to pass such a test.

3) Police departments and licensed gun ranges should offer safety and ownership training classes at some nominal fee for those who need the training to pass the above test.

4) Anyone who does not fulfill item #2 above may own any number of guns they wish, but may not keep them at home, in their car, or any other private setting until they do. They may have them stored at a firing range, police precinct, or similar location.

5) Make the owner of a gun equally legally responsible for anything that happens with that gun, unless it is stolen and reported as such. Don't lock the gun up properly, and your kid finds it and shoots and kills himself? You're up on manslaughter charges, as the gun was YOUR responsibility, and you failed.


There. Anyone and everyone (except for felons and crazy people) can own as many firearms as they like, even if they are utterly irresponsible with them, they just can't keep them at home. No one who can prove they know gun safety has to take a class, and those who can't prove it, and thus would be dangerous, must GET such a class so they know what they're doing before they can put anyone at risk with their firearm(s).

I don't see how this presents any barrier for any legitimate, safe owner, nor do I consider the hoops necessary to jump through to be more than extremely minorly limiting upon the basic right, and ensures greater public safety by having provably safe gun owners, as well as stiffened penalties for those who ARE unsafe with them in practice, after deterministically proving they should know better by passing the test.

I can't see at all how this would be objectionable, honestly, no matter how much of a gun fan you are, unless for some reason you like the idea of unsafe owners....

-Arlos

I actually think I could sign off on all of that, especially the part about holding someone responsible for the use of their firearm(s) absent them being stolen.

[Evermore]

Guns are for pussies.

I am what i eat, Richard.

[Eziekial]

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.

In case you don't recognize that passage; it's the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence. Which is the very foundation of which our government is designed around. The very amendments to the Constitution we are talking about were debated as even NECESSARY to be included as there was fear that by naming these rights we would be designating limitations on rights of men under the new form of government. Rights are endowed by their Creator. The PROTECTION of those rights are the reason for government. You can't protect a right by taking it away... for safe keeping. That flies in the face of freedom. We've seen this tactic played before in different areas: suspension of habeas corpus, the Guantanamo detainees designated "enemy combatants". If you are ok with this abuse of power (and I know you are not) then I can see why you feel justified in presenting any form of "appropriate" or "common sense" restrictions to other rights. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater because it infringes on my right to peacefully enjoy a movie so there are laws that if i shoot you, then I get punished. Leave it to there and enforce those right laws.

[Naethyn]

MARYSVILLE, Wash., Nov. 17 (UPI) -- A Washington man who told officers he fatally shot his 6-year-old daughter while cleaning a gun had been drinking heavily, court records indicate.
Snohomish County sheriff's deputies arrested 42-year-old Richard Peters of Marysville following the Sunday night shooting while they considered whether to file felony first-degree manslaughter charges, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported Monday.

Peters called 911 after the shooting, around 7:30 p.m. His daughter, Stormy Peters, was rushed to Seattle Children's Hospital but she died there, the newspaper said.

Citing court documents filed in Snohomish County Superior Court, the newspaper said Richard Peters told police he had asked his daughter to bring his Colt .45-caliber pistol from his room. He said he had unloaded the magazine but for some reason the gun fired.

Police said Richard Peters told an investigator he "must have" pulled the trigger. He told a detective he had been drinking "double vodkas" while he and his wife cleaned the guns, and court documents indicated he said he was probably too drunk to drive.

An 8-year-old sibling, an infant and the girl's mother also were in the residence at the time of the shooting, authorities said. Richard Peters was ordered held on $50,000 bail.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/17/ ... 226968434/

To drunk to drive...

[10sun]

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.

In case you don't recognize that passage; it's the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence. Which is the very foundation of which our government is designed around. The very amendments to the Constitution we are talking about were debated as even NECESSARY to be included as there was fear that by naming these rights we would be designating limitations on rights of men under the new form of government. Rights are endowed by their Creator. The PROTECTION of those rights are the reason for government. You can't protect a right by taking it away... for safe keeping. That flies in the face of freedom. We've seen this tactic played before in different areas: suspension of habeas corpus, the Guantanamo detainees designated "enemy combatants". If you are ok with this abuse of power (and I know you are not) then I can see why you feel justified in presenting any form of "appropriate" or "common sense" restrictions to other rights. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater because it infringes on my right to peacefully enjoy a movie so there are laws that if i shoot you, then I get punished. Leave it to there and enforce those right laws.

The right to bear arms is not one of the rights listed by the Declaration of Independence which oddly enough happens to be different from the Constitution of the United States. Weird how that happens and you confuse two different documents whose writers didn't explore the semantics.

[Harrison]

He wasn't addressing the right to bear arms there. He was addressing the rights themselves and someones assertion that rights are granted by authority and not inherently granted.

[Tikker]

He was addressing the rights themselves and someones assertion that rights are granted by authority and not inherently granted.

your invisible man doesn't exist tho...

[Harrison]

Don't say my invisible man.

I'm just not as arrogant as some morons to believe I have the answers to everything.

That's neither here nor there, though. That wasn't the point.

Authority can't "grant" anyone rights to anything. Simply existing, within the realm of physical possibility, grants you the right to do anything.

Removal of rights are as the result of authority, however.

It's one of those fagtastic basic principles of philosophy/logic. Has nothing to do with any religion when you boil it down.

[araby]

The truth is I'm torn on this issue for many reasons. I was raised around guns, shooting them, hunting with them, my dad collects them...but why am I freaked out by them?

I suppose I know it's because the chances of surviving from a gunshot are not good. crazy people carry guns these days, and that's scary. it's easy to get a gun. that's scary.

I probably have an irrational fear of guns, but what is the rational part of not being afraid of getting shot? the question remains though, what is the rational part of not being afraid of guns?

well that's easy. the crazy people that carry them. reminds me of the Confederate flag issue. It became something that enough people had to complain over until finally they said, "okay we gotta do something else, then." this issue will end up being huge, nation-wide concentration on fire arms makes me uncomfortable.

[brinstar]

support your right to arm bears

[araby]

I need to go to the shooting range.

[Griever]

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.

This is something that translates through any era, and semantics has no influence over. Taking away the people's right to bear arms gives this statement less power and only shows that the government directly opposes what it stands for. Sure the government's military power could crush a rag-tag band of citizens with guns, but what we forget is that the military are citizens as well. Every soldier has the same rights and responsibilities as every citizen. Whats to say that a majority of the military wouldn't turn on the government? Isn't that something that the government should be afraid of?

[ClakarEQ]

I don't know if what you say is true, I don't think a soldier has the same rights. For example, you can't do what you want, you can only do what you're told. You aren't tried in civilian courts and military courts do NOT have the same "laws" as civilian.

In alot of ways, when you sign up for the man, you're actually waiving some of your rights, like the right to be free LOL