some think that gun laws are unconstitutional

[debilorrah]

Quote:
It is not about need, it is about rights. The right to bear arms, and therefore protect yourself, your family and your property. It is not perceived, it is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It is real and it is valid.

In this day and age, the need for background checks is well founded and I have no disagreement with that process. I do, however, disagree with people that want to remove the right to bear arms from the Constitution.

 

[can you hear me now?]

On so I.don't take the time to read the whole thread. Now I just want to voice my opinion. Gun safety OS a mist. If you plan to be toting around a firearm then I think you should have some rules to keep you on some kinds of guidelines. I think some states have gone overboard on some things. When they make it impossible to get a firearm in my eyes the only ones that feel the bad effects are the law abiding citizens. Why do i say this? Because of you are the criminal you know that nobody or virtually nobody will have any means to defend themselves without one themselves. Seems to me they have been given an unfair advantage. Just my opinion, I don't intend to argue the point, or re ity against anyone else's points. Just felt like I would say somthing that I felt I wanted to add to this thread. If anyone reads this I just want to say tanks for your time.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
Thought Texas was an open carry state?

I know Ga an Tn is an I think Fl.

 

[chickenguru]

Quote:
In 1911, Turkey established for real gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Then from 1929 to 1953, approximately 20-millon dissidents — again, deprived of the means to defend themselves — were rounded up and killed.

From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.

China has more practice than anyone does in disarming potential dissenters. Once upon a time they banned knives and swords. In 1935 they established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over 20-million dissidents, again deprived of the tools for self defense, were rounded up and killed.

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."
- Mao Tse Tung

Cambodia enshrined gun control in 1956. In just two years (1975-1977) over one million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.

Guatemala locked in gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.

Former President of NBC News M. Gartner was quoted in USA Today, Jan. 16, 1992, as saying, "I now think the only way to control handgun use is to prohibit the guns. And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution." Hello

Senator Diane Feinstein, speaking on "60-Minutes" immediately after the passage of the Brady Bill said, "if I thought I could get the votes, I'd have taken them all." That's not paranoia; that is the clearly stated objective of a liberal Democrat U.S. senator.

April 5, 1996, Charles Krauthammer wrote in the Washington Post, "the Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." "Ultimate," as in inevitable, eventually, sometime in the future ... not now ... BUT soon

Frederick Douglass noted that :

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle! Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong, which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either rods or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."

This is all reason enough for myself and I would imagine a lot of other law abiding gun owners.
When a nation starts getting complacent..well it all speaks for itself.

 

[debilorrah]

Good examples Guru!!!!

 

[thaiturkey]

I'm struggling with 'right' and 'need'.

Why should it be a right to keep a weapon that can kill another person? If no-one owns one, to take an extreme, then no-one will have to defend himself against one. I can see some argument to the effect that a gun is handy if someone breaks in to your home at night time. Some countries make it very hard for victims to defend themselves within the law. However, a gun in the home is no guarantee of success against an intruder, especially if he gets hold of it himself. Also, there is the risk of some nut job getting a legal gun and murdering people.

A community that arms itself with guns is not protected against an invading force. Whoever heard of a country being attacked by men carrying handguns and rifles?

I try to understand the gun lobby logic but most of it seems to me to lack the logic needed to justify the arming of citizens as a matter of routine. We are prepared for intruders in a number of ways that won't kill anyone unless we really go for it. So, if I make a mistake and whack my wife as she returns from the bathroom in the middle of the night I won't be arranging her funeral the next day!

Something that has alarmed me on this forum is the occasional off hand suggestion that annoying neighbours, for example, be dealt with from behind a gun barrel. Consider the possible final outcome of such an action.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
We have proven our system works over the last 250 years. In those same 250 years other countrys have proven gun control does not.

All wars are won or lost on the ground an there is not much chance a invader can bring enough people in to the US to stand up to the citizens of the USA. Thats how we won our independence an thats how we have kept it. Its also how we can safely send our army to fight in other countrys. Our army is not our real military power.

 

[thaiturkey]

Quote:
I can't agree with your first sentence. The US and the UK are at the opposite ends of the gun law scale but both countries are plagued with mass killing by people carrying guns. Neither system is working well. However, I feel safer in a country that doesn't allow all and sundry to pack a piece as a matter of course. I suppose that one's view on this is bound to be influenced by the culture of the country in which one was brought up.

I just can't picture the US being overrun by infantrymen toting small arms. If wars are won on the ground, by the way, it's with the help of heavy arms, tanks and air attacks. It's more likely that citizens would turn their guns on each other as they fought for means of escape and food. If you feel that invasion is a possibility, look more in the direction of a nuclear or chemical attack or an alien culture growing in human numbers in your own country. This is the real threat that Western governments are having to consider.

I take your point about the War of Independence, except that both sides fought with similar weapons, but things have changed since then. The US has not kept it's independence because everyone can own a gun and no-one has seriously threatened that independence yet. Britain won an Empire with swords, lances and Martini-Henry rifles but no-one would suggest that it's possible these days.

In deference to the wishes of the OP and, I'm sure, the Moderators, let's keep this a friendly exchange of views. No-one has to win a discussion.

 

[PineappleMama]

Thai the RIGHT is to defend yourself .... against all threats foreign and domestic... against the rapist who breaks into your home... or the government if they start pulling things like Tiananmen Square... or if some Terrorist comes into your home... not likely that, not enough of a slaughter, but off chance. Ironically the places most likely to be hit by a terrorist are the ones with no defense... but if that's what those businesses wanna do it's their call.

There's that part... the armed militia in case the government goes loco... see those other examples, throughout history (world, not just US) unarmed masses huddle or die... many times even cowering isn't enough, you die then too. But as others mentioned for a lot of folks it is more about the personal protection angle than anything.

When Gun Laws are passed they only effect the Law ABIDING Citizens... you know, the ones that wouldn't go out and kill someone anyways... the ones that they do NOT effect are the criminals that will happily blow your head off for the two dollars in change in your car console... those guys don't give a fig about Gun Laws, they won't turn theirs in, and they will continue to use it in any way they see fit, to hurt anyone they want... the only difference is that instead of being able to shoot the killer before he shoots you, your spouse, your children.... instead you have to stand there with a rolling pin in hand and watch.

That is what keeps a lot of people fighting for Gun Rights... it's not the criminals up there fighting for them... they can get them any time they want... it's the decent folk who want to protect, not attack, that want to keep the right to do so.

Now in a perfect city, county, state, country where there are No Guns Anywhere... and no black market to provide them EVER... then sure, you can ban guns and be fine. But in the US, GREAT but admittedly not perfect, that's just not a SAFE choice.

Doesn't mean I'ma rush out and buy one... for reasons stated earlier... but I 100% understand those that do.

 

[thaiturkey]

Quote:
When we get down to practicalities, it's a dilemma, isn't it. You can argue in many different ways but none is a perfect solution to the problem. I do sense, though, that some of the gun lobby arguments are based on myth and outdated thinking and come from people who just want to have guns to play with. Like owning a Rottweiler - no good reason to have a killer dog. If they can't produce a convincing case then there isn't a case at all.

I think that if you have a gun you are more likely to be attacked with one - and it might be your own. Presumably, you can't in the US, just leave your gun lying around on the bedside cabinet. If you wake up to see a gun pointing at you, you won't be given chance to rummage around looking for your own, pull the safety catch, cock it and point the thing. The occasions on which you might actually save the lives of yourself and your family seem rather few when I consider the likely types of event. You are more likely to be killed immediately, I think.

Is it really legal to arm yourself against what you might decide is a belligerent government? Who would decide that it's time to fight? Who runs the militia and who would want them to run the country? How would the population organise itself against trained troops with heavy weapons and aircraft? I just can't see it as a valid case for keeping a gun and a handful of bullets in the same building as your children. If they're coming your way, just get the hell out and hope. Standing bravely on the front lawn with a handgun won't last for long. Isn't an armed militia itself a threat to your way of life? If they are prepared to fight government forces it must be someone's private army. He won't be interested in anyone but himself if push comes to shove.

I accept that tight gun laws are not complete protection and I don't know the answer to that any more than anyone else. But if it's easy to get a gun there's probably more likelihood of one being used in a crime.