Discussion: The Second Amendment

[The Senator]

The Supreme Court is debating whether citizens have the right to own guns under the Second Amendment this week. As many of you are aware, DC has a ban the sale and ownership of personal firearms.

So, gang, do you believe we have the RIGHT to own guns under the Second Amendment? If you do or don't, do you believe we should restrict access to certain types of firearms, by certain types of people? And how would you solve crises which have developed in some our cities, such as illegal arms deals, gun-related homicides, and even school shootings?

Discuss away.

[Tron5000]

Guns kick ass. They allow me to prevent someone from killing me in my house. Right on.

[Gilpesh]

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them.

Really, if a person is going to commit crime with a gun... they are. None of these laws or taking away rights is going to stop them when they have already decided to break the law. If anything this would just make people less safe.

Also I hate to do the car thing.... but really let's outlaw some cars when we're on the stopping people from getting killed bandwagon.

[Tron5000]

Oh yeah, of course we have the right to own guns under the 2nd Amendment. It says so in plain English. I wish there was no need for guns (i.e., there were no people who would try to hurt me with their guns), but that is not the case. So I'm certainly not going to put myself at a disadvantage against crazy people by being unarmed.

[The Senator]

I don't believe the constitution gives us a right to own guns.

I do not, however, believe we should ban guns. I believe those who can act responsibly should be able to own a single-shot or semi-automatic weapon. However, I believe that you should be psychologically stable and that you shouldn't have a history of violent behavior.

I also favor banning automatic weapons (or at least the sale of that sort of ammunition). I don't think anyone has a personal need for a submachine gun, if you ask me.

[Tron5000]

Coincidentally, my roommate just received his conceal-carry permit today.

We own single-shot and semi-autos, but no fully-auto weapons. There's just no need for that.

[Gilpesh]

*sigh*

Why does everyone have to be level-headed and agree on the issues?

[SuBe]

I believe that the 2nd Amendmant Guarentees your right to carry and own a Firearm. This was intentionally put into the Bill of Rights to keep the Government in Check. If we loose this right, it is a loss of all Rights. I believe that if you are convicted of a Violent Crime, you willfully gave up your right to own and carry a Firearm.

[Matt]

The Constitution should be seen as a living document. When the Framers wrote it, they could not anticipate guns that can fire 30 rounds per-second. "Arms" in their time meant a musket that takes a minute and a half to load after EACH SHOT. The Constitution should adapt to modern times and technologies.

I am not advocating a ban on guns. I am advocating strict laws surrounding ownership and an outlaw on automatic and assault rifles. Hand guns and semi-automatic rifles should be permited, but frankly there is no need for a civilian to own an AK-47.

[MaskedManJRK]

I believe that the 2nd Amendmant Guarentees your right to carry and own a Firearm. This was intentionally put into the Bill of Rights to keep the Government in Check. If we loose this right, it is a loss of all Rights. I believe that if you are convicted of a Violent Crime, you willfully gave up your right to own and carry a Firearm.

Unfortunately the Government both doesn't care and has better weapons then us. Seriously, if a mass tried to succeed the government, all that will happen is that they'll take out a plane and shoot a missle at them. End of succession.

At this point, people only consider using guns to defend their property against the common criminals--they know if they try to point their guns to the government to defend their property, they're f**ked.

But I digress.

[SuBe]

Unfortunately the Government both doesn't care and has better weapons then us. Seriously, if a mass tried to succeed the government, all that will happen is that they'll take out a plane and shoot a missle at them. End of succession.

At this point, people only consider using guns to defend their property against the common criminals--they know if they try to point their guns to the government to defend their property, they're f**ked.

But I digress.
I agree, try it and you are F**cked, but the right is still there. The Founding Fathers were afraid of possible Government tyranny. This gives us an option in the future to protect ourselves from Government. If we lose our Right to Firearms, we lose our option to protect ourselves from the Government and replace them with another.

[Tron5000]

The Constitution should be seen as a living document. When the Framers wrote it, they could not anticipate guns that can fire 30 rounds per-second. "Arms" in their time meant a musket that takes a minute and a half to load after EACH SHOT. The Constitution should adapt to modern times and technologies.

I am not advocating a ban on guns. I am advocating strict laws surrounding ownership and an outlaw on automatic and assault rifles. Hand guns and semi-automatic rifles should be permited, but frankly there is no need for a civilian to own an AK-47.

AK-47s are semi-automatic rifles. You have to squeeze the trigger for each shot. It is illegal to own an AK-47 that has been modified for fully-automatoic use.

[MaskedManJRK]

I agree, try it and you are F**cked, but the right is still there. The Founding Fathers were afraid of possible Government tyranny. This gives us an option in the future to protect ourselves from Government. If we lose our Right to Firearms, we lose our option to protect ourselves from the Government and replace them with another.

I agree, I'm just saying that people mostly buy guns so that they can defend their home from break-ins or so they don't get mugged. I think at this point, only survivalists and the NRA really believe that owning handguns could stop the federal government.

[SuBe]

I agree, I'm just saying that people mostly buy guns so that they can defend their home from break-ins or so they don't get mugged. I think at this point, only survivalists and the NRA really believe that owning handguns could stop the federal government.
That is true, MOST people don't think about it now, but if they ever need to, either next week or in 200 years, it is better to be prepared.

Anyway, if Skynet ever becomes opperational, wouldn't you want to be apart of the human rebellion? :yay:

[Tron5000]

That is true, MOST people don't think about it now, but if they ever need to, either next week or in 200 years, it is better to be prepared.

Anyway, if Skynet ever becomes opperational, wouldn't you want to be apart of the human rebellion? :yay:

Screw SkyNet. I'm waiting for the zombies. That's why I'm arming myself to the teeth.

[Malice]

You can own any damn gun you want within reason in my opinion.
if it can take out a tank, then no...but rifles and pistols...
Be my guest.

[Kelly]

As personal protection.......as stated above rifle, handgun.......along with a background check that is actually CHECKED....on a database that is worldwide, not just state by state.......

[lazur]

The Supreme Court is debating whether citizens have the right to own guns under the Second Amendment this week. As many of you are aware, DC has a ban the sale and ownership of personal firearms.

So, gang, do you believe we have the RIGHT to own guns under the Second Amendment? If you do or don't, do you believe we should restrict access to certain types of firearms, by certain types of people? And how would you solve crises which have developed in some our cities, such as illegal arms deals, gun-related homicides, and even school shootings?

Discuss away.

Actually, the Supreme Court isn't discussing 'guns' on a basic level at all - it's discussing 'handguns' and whether citizens have 'rights' to own 'handguns' (the type of gun used most often in crime, but also in home defense), specifically in Washington DC.

My personal opinion is yes, law abiding citizens should be able to own handguns.

[Tron5000]

As personal protection.......as stated above rifle, handgun.......along with a background check that is actually CHECKED....on a database that is worldwide, not just state by state.......

Why should my possession of a firearm be "worldwide" knowledge?

[Kelly]

Because that would ensure that someone, not needing to have a gun that comes from another country, becomes a citizen etc.....CANNOT get a gun. We are now a global society. Wake up....

[Tron5000]

Because that would ensure that someone, not needing to have a gun that comes from another country, becomes a citizen etc.....CANNOT get a gun. We are now a global society. Wake up....

I am awake. Otherwise I would be unable to type. I can talk in my sleep, but not type.

So you think that foreign governments should have access to information about the firearms that I keep in my own home?

[lazur]

Because that would ensure that someone, not needing to have a gun that comes from another country, becomes a citizen etc.....CANNOT get a gun. We are now a global society. Wake up....

We are not a 'global society' in that sense, at least not in my opinion. Our country is governed by laws which, in many cases, either take on a different form in other countries or don't exist at all.

Foreign nations should not be able to tap into a database to determine how 'armed' our country is. I believe that would be problematic to National Security.

[SuBe]

We are not a 'global society' in that sense, at least not in my opinion. Our country is governed by laws which, in many cases, either take on a different form in other countries or don't exist at all.

Foreign nations should not be able to tap into a database to determine how 'armed' our country is. I believe that would be problematic to National Security.
Maybe this could be a good thing.

*enemy looking at database*
*****, nevermind, them people got some guns.*

I'm only kidding, it's horrible idea.

[Kelly]

We are not a 'global society' in that sense, at least not in my opinion. Our country is governed by laws which, in many cases, either take on a different form in other countries or don't exist at all.

Foreign nations should not be able to tap into a database to determine how 'armed' our country is. I believe that would be problematic to National Security.


I'm am simply talking about a database that can give us a TRUE BACKGROUND check, even from those that choose to make our country their home. This is not to keep you from carrying the gun into another country. That country will take care of that problem.

[SuperFerret]

I don't like guns, but I don't think they should be completely illegal either.

[terry78]

I don't like guns, but I don't think they should be completely illegal either.

I think those of us that live in the big urban areas aren't big fans of guns because we only know them for being used for less than genial reasons. Those guys out in the boonies are the ones that crave the freedom to own multiple rifles and what not. Not trying to be funny, but just from guys I know that live out in farmland area and dudes that live here in the city, that's what the consensus is. If you live in some 7th floor studio apt. in the middle of downtown you ain't really trying to get no gun unless you've honestly been robbed before, possibly.

[SuperFerret]

I think those of us that live in the big urban areas aren't big fans of guns because we only know them for being used for less than genial reasons. Those guys out in the boonies are the ones that crave the freedom to own multiple rifles and what not. Not trying to be funny, but just from guys I know that live out in farmland area and dudes that live here in the city, that's what the consensus is. If you live in some 7th floor studio apt. in the middle of downtown you ain't really trying to get no gun unless you've honestly been robbed before, possibly.

True, my growing up in an urban envrionment (albeit a relatively peaceful one where I only found out about gun violence happening "around here" in my teens) had a hand in my dislike of guns, but I have other reasons as well. I don't like the fact that something so dangerous and powerful is simple enough to use that a child can figure it out. I don't like the fact that it's relatively easy for someone who would act irresponsibly can get one fairly easily. Hell, I don't like the way they look (for those who buy guns for collection and display purposes). I just don't like them.

[Excel]

I know from first hand knowledge-if you want to see murder rates drop, ban HAND GUN.

Its so easy to slip a pistol or something into your pocket and with the wrong peop,e, fights of arguments turn into shooting. Nobody will carry a riffle around. You can hunt with rifles or if you want to be able to dfefend yourself or family ro house or whatever, you can get a riffle.

semi automatics and hand guns have no use other then for death.

[terry78]

^LOL, that deer was coming right for me. I needed to shatter his skeletal frame with my AK.

[Franklin Richards]

I know from first hand knowledge-if you want to see murder rates drop, ban HAND GUN.

Its so easy to slip a pistol or something into your pocket and with the wrong peop,e, fights of arguments turn into shooting. Nobody will carry a riffle around. You can hunt with rifles or if you want to be able to dfefend yourself or family ro house or whatever, you can get a riffle.

semi automatics and hand guns have no use other then for death.

Gotta go with Excel on this one. I was raised in Texas and taught to respect guns. I used a 12 gauge to hunt quail. That's about all ya need. Maybe upgrade to a 16 gauge if that's your thing. But that's it.

You don't need automatic weapons or hand guns. You don't need armor piercing or teflon bullets. The only use for those kinds of thing is for killing people.

Handguns were designed to kill people. Why do you think Dr. Doom carries one?


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Tron5000]

Gotta go with Excel on this one. I was raised in Texas and taught to respect guns. I used a 12 gauge to hunt quail. That's about all ya need. Maybe upgrade to a 16 gauge if that's your thing. But that's it.

You don't need automatic weapons or hand guns. You don't need armor piercing or teflon bullets. The only use for those kinds of thing is for killing people.

Handguns were designed to kill people. Why do you think Dr. Doom carries one?


:doom: :doom: :doom:

The purpose for owning my hand gun is to kill people. Specifically, someone who breaks into my house and tries to harm me, my girlfriend, my roommate, or whoever else may be in my home. If you're in my home uninvited, and are trying to harm someone close to me who is in my home, you will get killed. Better them than me.

[lazur]

Fortunately, the Founding Fathers understood the importance and value in a person being able to adequately defend his or her own life. It's first on the list of the most 'fundamental' of freedoms; that 'law abiding' citizens are able to have the ability, at any time, to protect him or herself from crime and homicide. After all, what is the value of life if one is not able to protect it?

Our legacy as a country has, after all, boldly made the point with its 'wild west' and 'mob boss' history and/or current mentality, or at least the perception of these by the masses. We produce the most mesmerizing tales of crime and intrigue both on the screen (Godfather, Sopranos) and on the real streets of every city in America. (While, of course, chronicling our 'adventures' with the likes of 'reality tv', just to shove the point up the collective *ss of our citizens, and the rest of the world, with a little more zeal, and just a little bit deeper. Not necessarily in that order, and not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion.)

So maybe we all do have a reason to be just a 'little' paranoid.

The RIGHT to bear arms was recognized by the Founding Fathers because they understood what the pursuit of freedom was all about. They understood that freedom was power. With great power comes (no not great responsibility...) great risk, sometimes also coined by the popular phrase "Freedom Isn't Free." Funny how that phrase means something to all of us, no matter what side of the aisle we sit on, ain't it?

The Founding Fathers understood how to 'resonate' the pursuit of freedom and happiness with the language they crafted for our country and its government. But they also understood the 'nature' of the type of country they were creating, and that no matter how well a government's structure may be constructed, no matter how careful its language to protect its citizens, no matter how much opportunity for growth it provided its citizens, and no matter how many measures they took to protect the 'sanctity' of the government they were creating, great trepidation and animosity would rise up and grow equally as large. It doesn't matter if it's a thug breaking into your house while you sleep, or the rapist waiting behind that tree up ahead, in the dark, or a a 'hitman' pulling into your driveway on a Saturday afternoon. The danger is real and too common.

Has anyone ever really looked at our crime rate, by the way? The U.S. has the highest crime rate in the world. We have 2.2 million prisoners in this country. China is second with 1.5 million - with four times our population, mind you. Of course, that the U.S. has a completely ridiculous number of laws doesn't help with statistics, and some of the data provides puzzling results to most people with a brain. For example, of the 2.2 million, 57% of them are drug offenders. Only 5.5% are homicides. (I wonder how much of the 57% would go away for 'marijuana' were suddenly legalized. I can't find that data, but please do feel free to let me know if you do. :))

The spirit of the Second Amendment, as I see it, is this: Be a law-abiding citizen. Carry your gun and carry some extra money. Give the extra money freely to those who deserve or truly need it, but shoot dead those who would kill you to steal it.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[Matt]

I know from first hand knowledge-if you want to see murder rates drop, ban HAND GUN.

Its so easy to slip a pistol or something into your pocket and with the wrong peop,e, fights of arguments turn into shooting. Nobody will carry a riffle around. You can hunt with rifles or if you want to be able to dfefend yourself or family ro house or whatever, you can get a riffle.

semi automatics and hand guns have no use other then for death.

The results in England say otherwise. Criminals will get guns no matter what. To ban guns is simply to take them away from the people who want to have them for the right reasons.

[Tron5000]

The results in England say otherwise. Criminals will get guns no matter what. To ban guns is simply to take them away from the people who want to have them for the right reasons.

Why would we want law-abiding citizens to own guns? Wouldn't want to level the playing field or anything.

[Zen]

Im a liberal.

however... i do not beleive in gun restrictions for people who have no criminal record.

i beleive in protecting my homestead... from criminals... facist governments.

got a criminal record? bust out your bow and arrow. i dont think banning guns drops the crime record... doesnt englands crime record remain the same even without guns?

[Kelly]

Well lets take a look at Europe since the UK was brought up...

Does not really matter where guns are less available, those that want to get them...will get them.

After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world's highest violent crime rate -- twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen's handguns, a 2002 report of England's National Crime Intelligence Service states that while "Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, it appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm illegally will have little difficulty in doing so."

In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Several decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. BUT..... Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.

So a ban on handguns DOES NOT automatically mean lower murder rates.

[Tron5000]

Well lets take a look at Europe since the UK was brought up...

Does not really matter where guns are less available, those that want to get them...will get them.

After decades of ever-stricter gun controls, England banned handguns and confiscated them from all permit holders in 1997. Yet by 2000, England had the industrialized world's highest violent crime rate -- twice that of the U.S. Despite the confiscation of law-abiding Englishmen's handguns, a 2002 report of England's National Crime Intelligence Service states that while "Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the world, it appears that anyone who wishes to obtain a firearm illegally will have little difficulty in doing so."

In the rare case in which gun bans work, murderers use other weapons. Several decades of police-state enforcement of handgun prohibition have kept Russian gun ownership low, resulting in few gun murders. BUT..... Russia's murder rates have long been four times higher than those in the U.S. and 20 times higher than rates in countries such as Norway. Former Soviet nations like Lithuania also ban handguns and severely restrict other guns, yet have 10-15 times higher murder rates than European nations with much higher gun ownership.

So a ban on handguns DOES NOT automatically mean lower murder rates.

No, it generally results in higher crime rates.

I live near Kennesaw, GA. The city of Kennesaw actually requires that a gun be kept in every residence. And it has the lowest crime rate among Metro Atlanta cities.

People are far less likely to mess with someone when they have a feeling they may be shot. Self-preservation and all.

[terry78]

Im a liberal.

however... i do not beleive in gun restrictions for people who have no criminal record.

i beleive in protecting my homestead... from criminals... facist governments.

got a criminal record? bust out your bow and arrow. i dont think banning guns drops the crime record... doesnt englands crime record remain the same even without guns?

Did you just use the term "homestead?" :o

[Zen]

Did you just use the term "homestead?" :o

underground monolithic concrete dome.

in upstate new york. with a greenhouse and livestock for personal consumption.


its a feckin homestead ok buddy?

http://www.shotgun-laser.com/images/Shotgun-Laser2.jpg

[Tron5000]

Just in case anyone was planning on breaking into my house, I'd like to offer a small deterrent:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/IMG_0540.jpg

[Handsome Rob]

I believe the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm.

I grew up around guns and currently have a handgun for home protection.

[Zen]

Just in case anyone was planning on breaking into my house, I'd like to offer a small deterrent:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/IMG_0540.jpg

u gotta upgrade your firefox bro

[Handsome Rob]

Just in case anyone was planning on breaking into my house, I'd like to offer a small deterrent:

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f206/harrelson2131/IMG_0540.jpg

Is that an SKS in your right hand? My uncles bought several of those before the ban went into effect. I haven't seen or fired one in years, though. And, I'm not really a expert on the different kinds of guns--I just know how to use my own.

[Tron5000]

Is that an SKS in your right hand? My uncles bought several of those before the ban went into effect. I haven't seen or fired one in years, though. And, I'm not really a expert on the different kinds of guns--I just know how to use my own.

It's a Romanian WASR-10. AK-47. And it totally kicks ass.

[Tron5000]

u gotta upgrade your firefox bro

I'll make sure I get on that. Is it free? 'Cause I gotta pay for my conceal-carry permit first. Priorities and all.

[Mr. Credible]

i think that if you have any history of violent crime on your record, you should not be allowed to purchase or otherwise own a handgun, until a certain period after your sentence or punishment. likewise, if you have a history of mental illness, something that would generally make you unstable.


otherwise, arm up, i say.

[Excel]

All the article says is that they are still easy to get, maybe they should enforce rules a bit more??

No matter what happens, we need to understand 2 thing.

1) Police need them; they need to be more powerful than the criminals they fight

2) it is going to take sometime, atleast a decade, befopre you expirience any major effects; however once their there, they are there for good. i.e. if we ban handguns tomorrow, criminals will still be getting them. The deal is though, over time, the years of nothing being to purchase wil make em hard to get. That's all.

God the people who say we're better off with anybody owning a gun...I wonder who the hell they know; I know FARRRRRR too many people I would never trust with a gun.

[Tron5000]

i think that if you have any history of violent crime on your record, you should not be allowed to purchase or otherwise own a handgun, until a certain period after your sentence or punishment. likewise, if you have a history of mental illness, something that would generally make you unstable.


otherwise, arm up, i say.

Agreed. :up:

Some would argue that an individual who has gone through drug rehabilitation should not be allowed to own a firearm, but I respectfully disagree. People go through problematic times, and sometimes rely (unfortunately) on drugs or alcohol in order to get through those rough periods. But I feel that barring a conviction for a violent crime or a diagnosis of mental illness, the government should have no basis in determining whether or not a low-abiding citizen should be allowed to purchase and own a means of defense.

[Excel]

Hell no; I don't think some of you understand the effects a friggin gun can have until it hits close to home. Hand guns are pointless, and while I know some people are def. responsible enough to have one for security, many arent and their the ones we have to be concerned with. If you want to defend your home with a gun, than buy a riffle. Yeah, a lot of criminals who go break into homes might stil have em, but some of em wouldn't and thats better than nothing; and those ones who dont have one will think twice before trying to rob somebody. Over time, the % of thugs who aint packing would gradually grow, which at this pointr is the best possible scenario as they will never be completely gone even if they are banned.

[Tron5000]

Hell no; I don't think some of you understand the effects a friggin gun can have until it hits close to home. Hand guns are pointless, and while I know some people are def. responsible enough to have one for security, many arent and their the ones we have to be concerned with. If you want to defend your home with a gun, than buy a riffle. Yeah, a lot of criminals who go break into homes might stil have em, but some of em wouldn't and thats better than nothing; and those ones who dont have one will think twice before trying to rob somebody. Over time, the % of thugs who aint packing would gradually grow, which at this pointr is the best possible scenario as they will never be completely gone even if they are banned.

I respectfully disagree with your characterization of handguns as "pointless." There is definitely a point to the handgun being in my home. And that point is that if you're trying to kill me, I'm killing you first. I will terminate you with extreme prejudice. If the bad guy has one, then I get to have one too. No reason for the outlaws to have the upper hand.

[Kelly]

*copies and prints photo* *drives to the post office*

[Tron5000]

*copies and prints photo* *drives to the post office*

Can you put my picture on a box of milk? Preferably with a web site directing people toward my Tron-Is-Going-Back-To-School-And-Needs-Some-Loot Fund.

[Franklin Richards]

I love this cartoon.


UVV3Bn5G6lg&hl=en


:doom: :doom: :doom:

[Handsome Rob]

No matter what happens, we need to understand 2 thing.

2) it is going to take sometime, atleast a decade, befopre you expirience any major effects; however once their there, they are there for good. i.e. if we ban handguns tomorrow, criminals will still be getting them. The deal is though, over time, the years of nothing being to purchase wil make em hard to get. That's all.

God the people who say we're better off with anybody owning a gun...I wonder who the hell they know; I know FARRRRRR too many people I would never trust with a gun.

1. I disagree. Marijuana has been banned for decades, and it's still easy to get (from what I hear . . . don't smoke it, myself :oldrazz:).

2. You need to get to know some different people. I don't know any firearms owners that I don't feel comfortable around when they're handling guns.

[SuBe]

2) it is going to take sometime, atleast a decade, befopre you expirience any major effects; however once their there, they are there for good. i.e. if we ban handguns tomorrow, criminals will still be getting them. The deal is though, over time, the years of nothing being to purchase wil make em hard to get. That's all.

God the people who say we're better off with anybody owning a gun...I wonder who the hell they know; I know FARRRRRR too many people I would never trust with a gun.
It'll just make it hard to get for the Law Abiding Citizen, Criminals would have a Network Black/Gray Market to get what they want, and be able to use it against a populace that can't get weapons.

[Bill]

Hell no; I don't think some of you understand the effects a friggin gun can have until it hits close to home. Hand guns are pointless, and while I know some people are def. responsible enough to have one for security, many arent and their the ones we have to be concerned with. If you want to defend your home with a gun, than buy a riffle. Yeah, a lot of criminals who go break into homes might stil have em, but some of em wouldn't and thats better than nothing; and those ones who dont have one will think twice before trying to rob somebody. Over time, the % of thugs who aint packing would gradually grow, which at this pointr is the best possible scenario as they will never be completely gone even if they are banned.



The main problem with buying a rifle for the purpose of home defense, aside from it being clumsy and awkward to bring into action quickly in close quarters, is that the round travels for miles. Do you want the guy next door to you shooting a rifle in his house and take the chance that the round will go through the walls into your house?

The second problem with your scenario is that criminals don't tend to buy their guns from local gun shops. They get them on the black market. So banning them will effectively take the opportunity of owning one out of the hands of the honest citizen, but will little effect the criminal, who doesn't go through to the normals channels of obtaining them.

[Zen]

Excel i completely understand your sentiment.

i do...

the problem is there will always be some sort of weapon. you take guns away and people will have knives, stun guns and whatever else...

i have not seen any evidence that taking guns away reduces violence. if you have any, along with any serious commentary or articles as to why it would intrinsically lower crime i want to see it, because i want that to be the reality...

i want to beleive that guns are the reason people do stupid things, but right now i happen to think its people who do them, and despite guns making it more possible, i do not think people will be swayed from doing the destructive objectives they have in their minds, if they dont have a gun.


the second guns are banned, and someone breaks into my home and has one... its all over, the point is lost...

now, as for anything over shotguns and hunting rifles...

such as semi-automatic rifles and any other over the top high powered rifles, people who brandish those now are simply caught up in owning guns and are not serious about protection. if they were they would learn how to shoot a shotgun or rifle... extremely well. not have assault weapons, think they are safe cause its mega powerfull. go to the range a few times and think they know what they are doing. they are the ones half likely to kill their own family members by crossfire.

after proper gun training there is absolutely no reason for assault weapons other than ego and clinical paranoia.

handguns are tough, im not exactly sure why we need a hand gun... when we could have a shotgun in the home. i would support a hand gun ban if a government could plausibly keep them out of criminals hands... but how would they do that?

[Malice]

I dont understand.
Do people not realize.
A BANNING of ..lets say handguns.
Will ONLY hurt the law-abiding people?

If its illegal. Do you think people will stop black market shipping handguns here?

Its just like drugs...its illegal as hell, but I am sure, there is someone within a 1 mile radius I could go buy meth from. Banning regular guns is not the way to solve this.

[SuBe]

I dont understand.
Do people not realize.
A BANNING of ..lets say handguns.
Will ONLY hurt the law-abiding people?

If its illegal. Do you think people will stop black market shipping handguns here?

Its just like drugs...its illegal as hell, but I am sure, there is someone within a 1 mile radius I could go buy meth from. Banning regular guns is not the way to solve this.
agreed

[Malice]

I wholely admit there is a problem, but the banning of guns is not the issue.

I see more as being a parental problem to be honest.
I am sure, just like the meth issue, if I wanted, if I had a few grand, I could get myself a non-serialized handgun that is not entirely traceable.... (I am not saying I know anything about non-traceable guns...this is just a statement)

Regardless...We all know...handguns are not the problem, its the retards behind them

[Tron5000]

I wholely admit there is a problem, but the banning of guns is not the issue.

I see more as being a parental problem to be honest.
I am sure, just like the meth issue, if I wanted, if I had a few grand, I could get myself a non-serialized handgun that is not entirely traceable.... (I am not saying I know anything about non-traceable guns...this is just a statement)

Regardless...We all know...handguns are not the problem, its the retards behind them

Guns don't kill people. Bad guys that want to harm you and/or take your stuff with guns kill people.

Unless you kill them first.

[Darthphere]

I dont understand.
Do people not realize.
A BANNING of ..lets say handguns.
Will ONLY hurt the law-abiding people?

If its illegal. Do you think people will stop black market shipping handguns here?

Its just like drugs...its illegal as hell, but I am sure, there is someone within a 1 mile radius I could go buy meth from. Banning regular guns is not the way to solve this.

Sure, or do you know?:huh::wow:

I wholely admit there is a problem, but the banning of guns is not the issue.

I see more as being a parental problem to be honest.
I am sure, just like the meth issue, if I wanted, if I had a few grand, I could get myself a non-serialized handgun that is not entirely traceable.... (I am not saying I know anything about non-traceable guns...this is just a statement)

Regardless...We all know...handguns are not the problem, its the retards behind them

Malice is on meth.

[hippie_hunter]

Personally I feel that if we allow the government to trample over one part of the Constitutition, then we're setting a precident to allow them to trample over more integral parts of the Constitution. If we allow the government to ban guns who's going to stop them from ruining the freedom to speech? Or our right to vote? Or disband Congress?

The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and it must be respected. For the most part gun control laws just negatively affect law abiding citizens and those who want a gun will get a gun. Get rid of guns, and those who want to commit violent acts will still commit them with knives or some other tool. It's not the guns fault for a person's death in gun violence. A gun doesn't have a mind of its own. It doesn't have any emotion or thinking capacity. We live in a world of free will and the person holding the gun is the one who decided to press the trigger.

What we need to do is reasonable gun control which is already in effect. Restrict certain kinds of weapons to people. There's no reason for us to own a fully automatic AK-47. We shouldn't allow a convicted felon to own a gun, just like we don't let them vote. We should do thorough background checks, maybe even more thorough than we have now. We should require safeties on most firearms. We should require gun safety courses. Reasonable gun control is the key, not something absurd that will not help anything but affect those who are completely abiding by the law.

[Malice]

Personally I feel that if we allow the government to trample over one part of the Constitutition, then we're setting a precident to allow them to trample over more integral parts of the Constitution. If we allow the government to ban guns who's going to stop them from ruining the freedom to speech? Or our right to vote? Or disband Congress?

The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and it must be respected. For the most part gun control laws just negatively affect law abiding citizens and those who want a gun will get a gun. Get rid of guns, and those who want to commit violent acts will still commit them with knives or some other tool. It's not the guns fault for a person's death in gun violence. A gun doesn't have a mind of its own. It doesn't have any emotion or thinking capacity. We live in a world of free will and the person holding the gun is the one who decided to press the trigger.

What we need to do is reasonable gun control which is already in effect. Restrict certain kinds of weapons to people. There's no reason for us to own a fully automatic AK-47. We shouldn't allow a convicted felon to own a gun, just like we don't let them vote. We should do thorough background checks, maybe even more thorough than we have now. We should require safeties on most firearms. We should require gun safety courses. Reasonable gun control is the key, not something absurd that will not help anything but affect those who are completely abiding by the law.

Hippy...I agree.

[Excel]

1. I disagree. Marijuana has been banned for decades, and it's still easy to get (from what I hear . . . don't smoke it, myself :oldrazz:).

2. You need to get to know some different people. I don't know any firearms owners that I don't feel comfortable around when they're handling guns.

Just cause you dont know em dont mean they dont exist. Drugs are totally-if you have a hand gun and kill someone with it, people will find out.

[Matt]

Personally I feel that if we allow the government to trample over one part of the Constitutition, then we're setting a precident to allow them to trample over more integral parts of the Constitution. If we allow the government to ban guns who's going to stop them from ruining the freedom to speech? Or our right to vote? Or disband Congress?

The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and it must be respected. For the most part gun control laws just negatively affect law abiding citizens and those who want a gun will get a gun. Get rid of guns, and those who want to commit violent acts will still commit them with knives or some other tool. It's not the guns fault for a person's death in gun violence. A gun doesn't have a mind of its own. It doesn't have any emotion or thinking capacity. We live in a world of free will and the person holding the gun is the one who decided to press the trigger.

What we need to do is reasonable gun control which is already in effect. Restrict certain kinds of weapons to people. There's no reason for us to own a fully automatic AK-47. We shouldn't allow a convicted felon to own a gun, just like we don't let them vote. We should do thorough background checks, maybe even more thorough than we have now. We should require safeties on most firearms. We should require gun safety courses. Reasonable gun control is the key, not something absurd that will not help anything but affect those who are completely abiding by the law.

Summed up my views just about perfectly. :up:

[cerealkiller182]

Personally I feel that if we allow the government to trample over one part of the Constitutition, then we're setting a precident to allow them to trample over more integral parts of the Constitution. If we allow the government to ban guns who's going to stop them from ruining the freedom to speech? Or our right to vote? Or disband Congress?

The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and it must be respected. For the most part gun control laws just negatively affect law abiding citizens and those who want a gun will get a gun. Get rid of guns, and those who want to commit violent acts will still commit them with knives or some other tool. It's not the guns fault for a person's death in gun violence. A gun doesn't have a mind of its own. It doesn't have any emotion or thinking capacity. We live in a world of free will and the person holding the gun is the one who decided to press the trigger.

What we need to do is reasonable gun control which is already in effect. Restrict certain kinds of weapons to people. There's no reason for us to own a fully automatic AK-47. We shouldn't allow a convicted felon to own a gun, just like we don't let them vote. We should do thorough background checks, maybe even more thorough than we have now. We should require safeties on most firearms. We should require gun safety courses. Reasonable gun control is the key, not something absurd that will not help anything but affect those who are completely abiding by the law.

well said sir

[Venom'sDad]

I believe that the 2nd Amendmant Guarentees your right to carry and own a Firearm. This was intentionally put into the Bill of Rights to keep the Government in Check. If we loose this right, it is a loss of all Rights. I believe that if you are convicted of a Violent Crime, you willfully gave up your right to own and carry a Firearm.

Exactly... just look at how the citizens of Tibet are helpless against China.

I completely disagree... there is nothing in the Constitution that says felons automatic lose their right to carry a firearm. That's just your opinion, whichis no better than those who wish to outlaw all together the right to cary and own firearms.

[The Senator]

Exactly... just look at how the citizens of Tibet are helpless against China.

I completely disagree... there is nothing in the Constitution that says felons automatic lose their right to carry a firearm. That's just your opinion, whichis no better than those who wish to outlaw all together the right to cary and own firearms.

If you've committed a felony, you've committed a serious crime. And if you've committed a felony which resulted in violent behavior, you've committed a crime which I personally think forfeits your right to own a gun. The Supreme Court is currently deliberating over the right to own a handgun, and the one things which many agree will come out of the verdict is that, while the Constitution allows us the right to own such a weapon, the government has the ability to control guns as long as it doesn't ban them across the board.

I'm torn as to whether these laws should cover all felons, or those who committed a felony using weapons. Obviously, if you embezzled money, there isn't a reason to suspect that you'll go on a killing spree. But if you held a convenient store hostage, then I personally think it's totally uncalled for to allow that convicted criminal the ability to carry a handgun. Once you've showed us that you can't use the weapon responsibly, then why should we trust you to carry the same weapon in the future?

Besides, allowing violent felons access to a handgun even goes against the NRA's ideology. From what I know, the NRA believes that responsible individuals deserve access to firearms, and they've spoken out in favor of laws which would restrict access to violent felons, as well as those with a history of mental illness.

[cerealkiller182]

^^^seconded

[Excel]

A friend of mine shot themselves early yesterday morning, got me thinking about how obnoxiously high a the suicide rate would be if everybody did have a gun of their own.

[Tron5000]

A friend of mine shot themselves early yesterday morning, got me thinking about how obnoxiously high a the suicide rate would be if everybody did have a gun of their own.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend. That truly is very sad. Prayers with you and everyone affected by this.

[jaguarr]

Personally I feel that if we allow the government to trample over one part of the Constitutition, then we're setting a precident to allow them to trample over more integral parts of the Constitution. If we allow the government to ban guns who's going to stop them from ruining the freedom to speech? Or our right to vote? Or disband Congress?

The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms and it must be respected. For the most part gun control laws just negatively affect law abiding citizens and those who want a gun will get a gun. Get rid of guns, and those who want to commit violent acts will still commit them with knives or some other tool. It's not the guns fault for a person's death in gun violence. A gun doesn't have a mind of its own. It doesn't have any emotion or thinking capacity. We live in a world of free will and the person holding the gun is the one who decided to press the trigger.

What we need to do is reasonable gun control which is already in effect. Restrict certain kinds of weapons to people. There's no reason for us to own a fully automatic AK-47. We shouldn't allow a convicted felon to own a gun, just like we don't let them vote. We should do thorough background checks, maybe even more thorough than we have now. We should require safeties on most firearms. We should require gun safety courses. Reasonable gun control is the key, not something absurd that will not help anything but affect those who are completely abiding by the law.

:up:

I know there are certain states that require gun owners to complete a gun safety course (Connecticut comes to mind) for first time firearm owners. I'd like to see all the states implement something like that. I also agreed very strongly with the five day waiting period provision of the Brady Act, but not all states continue to have a waiting period since that provision expired which I think is a mistake. Nobody needs to purchase a gun RIGHT NOW. They can plan ahead and wait for the background checks to clear.

jag

[jaguarr]

A friend of mine shot themselves early yesterday morning, got me thinking about how obnoxiously high a the suicide rate would be if everybody did have a gun of their own.

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, Excel. My condolences to their friends and family (for those that are left behind are the ones that truly suffer). But if they didn't shoot themselves, they'd have drank poison. If they didn't do that, they'd cut their wrists lengthwise and lay in a tub of hot water. If they didn't do that, they'd jump off a tall building. If they didn't do that, they'd throw themselves in front of a fast moving bus or train. People who really want to kill themselves (or someone else) are going to find a way to do it. Period.

jag

[Tron5000]

:up:

I know there are certain states that require gun owners to complete a gun safety course (Connecticut comes to mind) for first time firearm owners. I'd like to see all the states implement something like that. I also agreed very strongly with the five day waiting period provision of the Brady Act, but not all states continue to have a waiting period since that provision expired which I think is a mistake. Nobody needs to purchase a gun RIGHT NOW. They can plan ahead and wait for the background checks to clear.

jag

Are you referring to a safety course required to simply own a gun, or for a permit to carry? I know here in GA, a course is required for neither, whereas in VA, you can own a gun, but a safety course is required for a concealed-carry permit.

I'm all for a waiting period on guns as well as a safety course as a requirement for a concealed-carry permit. Not sure about a safety course simply to possess a gun in your home.

[jaguarr]

Are you referring to a safety course required to simply own a gun, or for a permit to carry? I know here in GA, a course is required for neither, whereas in VA, you can own a gun, but a safety course is required for a concealed-carry permit.

I'm all for a waiting period on guns as well as a safety course as a requirement for a concealed-carry permit. Not sure about a safety course simply to possess a gun in your home.

Certain states require first time gun purchasers to take a safety course. Period. Connecticut does, I think Maryland does, Washington state has been thinking it over. It's different from a concealed-carry permit where all states do require that the licensee complete a course to have that license (to my knowledge). Most states have hunter education courses that are required for someone to get a hunting license, too. I know I did several hunter/gun safety courses when I was a kid and first starting to go hunting with my dad.

jag

[Tron5000]

Certain states require first time gun purchasers to take a safety course. Period. Connecticut does, I think Maryland does, Washington state has been thinking it over. It's different from a concealed-carry permit where all states do require that the licensee complete a course to have that license (to my knowledge). Most states have hunter education courses that are required for someone to get a hunting license, too. I know I did several hunter/gun safety courses when I was a kid and first starting to go hunting with my dad.

jag

No course required in GA to carry a concealed weapon. My roommate received his in the mail about 2 weeks ago. Just had to go down to the courthouse, fill out the appropriate paperwork, and get fingerprinted. Couple months later, the license shows up in the mail.

[jaguarr]

No course required in GA to carry a concealed weapon. My roommate received his in the mail about 2 weeks ago. Just had to go down to the courthouse, fill out the appropriate paperwork, and get fingerprinted. Couple months later, the license shows up in the mail.

Hmmm.....interesting. Most states require some sort of course-work to get a concealed weapons permit. That's pretty frightening, actually.

jag

[Tron5000]

Hmmm.....interesting. Most states require some sort of course-work to get a concealed weapons permit. That's pretty frightening, actually.

jag

I think GA is of the mindset that you must show that you should not be trusted to carry a concealed weapon, rather than the other way around. Obviously, people with violent crimes in their past will certainly be denied their permit. But, barring that, if you're a GA citizen with no history of violent crime, the GA state government doesn't feel the need to impede your ability to carry a firearm.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I don't believe the constitution gives us a right to own guns.How could it possibly be any more clear than it is? :huh:

Amendment II : "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[Matt]

How could it possibly be any more clear than it is? :huh:

Amendment II : "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I believe the debate comes from the sentence before that which you (accidently I'm sure) left out.

The full text reads:


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The basic argument is, that the amendment is giving the right to a state run militia. Not the individual. I personally find that logic faulty as no other right in the Bill of Rights grants rights to the state or a government body, but never-the-less, that is the argument.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I believe the debate comes from the sentence before that which you (accidently I'm sure) left out.

The full text reads:



The basic argument is, that the amendment is giving the right to a state run militia. Not the individual. I personally find that logic faulty as no other right in the Bill of Rights grants rights to the state or a government body, but never-the-less, that is the argument.

1) It's not a "sentence" as you say it is. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"...

That's not a sentence.
It's like saying "Since Orange is the grooviest color of all, All citizens must wear orange sweaters every day."

It's explaining the rule.
The rule would not be "Orange is the grooviest color of all."
The rules there^ are...

"All citizens have to wear orange sweaters every day."

or, in the case of the real Constitution,

"The right of people (not members of a militia, no technical, legal definition of "militia", just PEOPLE) to own them shall not be infringed."

The militia argument would be valid if it said ANYTHING about who qualifies as a member of a government-sanctioned "militia".
"Militia" is just thrown in to EXPLAIN why,...PEOPLE get to have firearms.

The real statement is: "People get to own firearms."

[jaguarr]

The basic argument is, that the amendment is giving the right to a state run militia. Not the individual. I personally find that logic faulty as no other right in the Bill of Rights grants rights to the state or a government body, but never-the-less, that is the argument.

Actually, it's not talking about a state run militia, either. It's talking about the security of a FREE state. As in, the militia is necessary, and should be armed, in order to ensure a free state. That doesn't necessarily mean that the state government is involved in that. Don't forget that the founding fathers were very concerned about governmental bodies encroaching on the rights of the individual and that individuals should be readily armed to defend their freedom, even if that meant deposing the government through force.

jag

[Matt]

1) It's not a "sentence" as you say it is. It says: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"...

That's not a sentence.
It's like saying "Since Orange is the grooviest color of all, All citizens must wear orange sweaters every day."

It's explaining the rule.
The rule would not be "Orange is the grooviest color of all."
The rules there^ are...

"All citizens have to wear orange sweaters every day."

or, in the case of the real Constitution,

"The right of people (not members of a militia, no technical, legal definition of "militia", just PEOPLE) to own them shall not be infringed."

The militia argument would be valid if it said ANYTHING about who qualifies as a member of a government-sanctioned "militia".
"Militia" is just thrown in to EXPLAIN why,...PEOPLE get to have firearms.

The real statement is: "People get to own firearms."

I'm sorry Wilhelm, I was unaware that you were there when the Constitution was drafted and therefore must know exactly what the Framers thought process was. The fact is, whether you will admit it or not (and you undoubtedly will not) there is wiggle room in there and the argument can be made. I'm not saying I agree with it...but being as no one who is alive was present, there is no way to know the intent of that statement. Therefore it can be debated.

[SuBe]

Actually, it's not talking about a state run militia, either. It's talking about the security of a FREE state. As in, the militia is necessary, and should be armed, in order to ensure a free state. That doesn't necessarily mean that the state government is involved in that. Don't forget that the founding fathers were very concerned about governmental bodies encroaching on the rights of the individual and that individuals should be readily armed to defend their freedom, even if that meant deposing the government through force.

jag
Makes you wonder why there are groups in the Goverment trying to make you think you don't have that right to begin with, huh? Did you know that in Elementary School Text Books, it teaches that the 2nd Amendment is the Goverment Allowing people to have Guns so they can hunt? Ludicrious

[Matt]

Actually, it's not talking about a state run militia, either. It's talking about the security of a FREE state. As in, the militia is necessary, and should be armed, in order to ensure a free state. That doesn't necessarily mean that the state government is involved in that. Don't forget that the founding fathers were very concerned about governmental bodies encroaching on the rights of the individual and that individuals should be readily armed to defend their freedom, even if that meant deposing the government through force.

jag

I tend to agree. I am simply clarifiying how the argument CAN be made. I would be very suprised, in fact, if the Framers gave the government decided to add in one right of the state in a document whose sole purpose is to restrict the power of government and give it to the people.

[Matt]

Makes you wonder why there are groups in the Goverment trying to make you think you don't have that right to begin with, huh? Did you know that in Elementary School Text Books, it teaches that the 2nd Amendment is the Goverment Allowing people to have Guns so they can hunt? Ludicrious

And we wonder why America's education system is in such dire condition. :csad:

[Excel]

I'm sorry to hear about your friend, Excel. My condolences to their friends and family (for those that are left behind are the ones that truly suffer). But if they didn't shoot themselves, they'd have drank poison. If they didn't do that, they'd cut their wrists lengthwise and lay in a tub of hot water. If they didn't do that, they'd jump off a tall building. If they didn't do that, they'd throw themselves in front of a fast moving bus or train. People who really want to kill themselves (or someone else) are going to find a way to do it. Period.

jag

Yup. He was a former nieghbor of mine and was good friend with my younger brother. He was a month away from graduating high school. Popular kid, partier...depression just sucks.

However, I am not not toally sure he fits that bill. He had got arrested a month ago for drugs but had just gotten into the college he wanted to go to appearently but got caught having a party. It is thought that he was very drunk when he did it. I cant help but think it wouldnt have happened had he not had a weapon.

[StorminNorman]

I believe the debate comes from the sentence before that which you (accidently I'm sure) left out.

The full text reads:



The basic argument is, that the amendment is giving the right to a state run militia. Not the individual. I personally find that logic faulty as no other right in the Bill of Rights grants rights to the state or a government body, but never-the-less, that is the argument.

Thomas Jefferson believed: ""Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

It is not a stretch to believe this was the intent of the Second Amendment as well.

[jaguarr]

Yup. He was a former nieghbor of mine and was good friend with my younger brother. He was a month away from graduating high school. Popular kid, partier...depression just sucks.

However, I am not not toally sure he fits that bill. He had got arrested a month ago for drugs but had just gotten into the college he wanted to go to appearently but got caught having a party. It is thought that he was very drunk when he did it. I cant help but think it wouldnt have happened had he not had a weapon.

Depression, mixed with drugs and alcohol particularly, is a very bad combination. But drunk people walk off tall buildings or slit their wrists and die all the time. The gun wasn't the problem for your friend. Again, sorry for your loss, man.

jag

[Matt]

Thomas Jefferson believed: ""Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

It is not a stretch to believe this was the intent of the Second Amendment as well.

I love Jefferson quotes. :heart:

Still, if we really wanted to debate gun control, Jefferson is not really that good of a source of argument as he lived in a time when guns took a minute and a half to load a single shot into.

The Framers could've never anticipated the creation of automatic weapons or even semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, I'm not really sure if their opinions on the matter is that relevant.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I'm sorry Wilhelm, I was unaware that you were there when the Constitution was drafted and therefore must know exactly what the Framers thought process was. The fact is, whether you will admit it or not (and you undoubtedly will not) there is wiggle room in there and the argument can be made. I'm not saying I agree with it...but being as no one who is alive was present, there is no way to know the intent of that statement. Therefore it can be debated.

Dude, it's like diagramming a sentence.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," - is not a statement by itself.
It could easily go on to say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State is a thilly notion."

Th^t's a little clause, included to justify/explain, the real statement, the real, core sentence, that does make a statment on it's own:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is why I didn't include the begining, because whoever it was said that he didn't believe the Constitution gave people the right to keep and bear arms, and...you can not get more plain:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The beginning is not a rule. It's an explanation of the thought process that led to the rule. It's perfectly obvious. :huh:
It literally LEADS IN, to the rule.


If I left a note that said "As electrocution is dangerous, painful, costly and possibly deadly, no family members shall play with plugged in toasters while taking a bath."....you couldn't say, "Well, we're not supposed to play with toasters because electrocution is bad, so, as long as I don't get electrocuted, I'll play with a toaster in the bath, carefully!"

That is a violation of the rule..."no family members shall play with plugged in toasters while taking a bath.".
The reason behind the rule does not change the stated rule.
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Lol, a great illustration of how people can find a way to believe anything they want to believe, even when it's clearly wrong. :huh:

[jaguarr]

The Framers could've never anticipated the creation of automatic weapons or even semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, I'm not really sure if their opinions on the matter is that relevant.

They did live in a time when the government largely had more powerful forces than the general populace, though, and that hasn't changed at all. In fact, I'd say the divide between the military might of the general population and the government is much, much greater than it was back then. I'm willing to bet that guys like Jefferson would be aghast at that fact and how it's been abused in the past.

jag

[Excel]

The gun wasn't the problem for your friend.

jag

I know, this **** just dont make any sense :csad:

[Matt]

Dude, it's like diagramming a sentence.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," - is not a statement by itself.
It could easily go on to say: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State is a thilly notion."

Th^t's a little clause, included to justify/explain, the real statement, the real, core sentence, that does make a statment on it's own:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is why I didn't include the begining, because whoever it was said that he didn't believe the Constitution gave people the right to keep and bear arms, and...you can not get more plain:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The beginning is not a rule. It's an explanation of the thought process that led to the rule. It's perfectly obvious. :huh:
It literally LEADS IN, to the rule.


If I left a note that said "As electrocution is dangerous, painful, costly and possibly deadly, no family members shall play with plugged in toasters while taking a bath."....you couldn't say, "Well, we're not supposed to play with toasters because electrocution is bad, so, as long as I don't get electrocuted, I'll play with a toaster in the bath, carefully!"

That is a violation of the rule..."no family members shall play with plugged in toasters while taking a bath.".
The reason behind the rule does not change the stated rule.
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Lol, a great illustration of how people can find a way to believe anything they want to believe, even when it's clearly wrong. :huh:

*yawn* Are you done yet? Again Wilhelm, the sentence is at best questionable. The argument can be made. I do not see why you have so much trouble accepting that someone might read something differently than you do (okay, actually I can see why YOU would have so much trouble with that notion...but I digress).

[jaguarr]

I know, this **** just dont make any sense :csad:

Suicide absolutely never makes sense to anyone but the person who finds a way to rationalize killing themselves and that's ALWAYS got Bizarro Logic as it's base.

jag

[StorminNorman]

I love Jefferson quotes. :heart:

Still, if we really wanted to debate gun control, Jefferson is not really that good of a source of argument as he lived in a time when guns took a minute and a half to load a single shot into.

The Framers could've never anticipated the creation of automatic weapons or even semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, I'm not really sure if their opinions on the matter is that relevant.

But if the argument is about the intent of the Founding Fathers, as anyone who brings up the point of Militia is - which is the only credible argument one could make really, then the thoughts of Founding Father Jefferson could not be a better source of argument.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I love Jefferson quotes. :heart:

Still, if we really wanted to debate gun control, Jefferson is not really that good of a source of argument as he lived in a time when guns took a minute and a half to load a single shot into.

The Framers could've never anticipated the creation of automatic weapons or even semi-automatic weapons. Therefore, I'm not really sure if their opinions on the matter is that relevant.Yeah, I don't even have any huge allegiance to the idea of letting people own guns.
I'm just saying, the constitution clearly says that it's a right of the people to own them (Why? because an armed militia is necessary), so people shouldn't waste their time about arguing whether or not the Constitution grants us that right, but rather, should be arguing about whether that AMENDMENT should be updated or removed.

[Matt]

They did live in a time when the government largely had more powerful forces than the general populace, though, and that hasn't changed at all. In fact, I'd say the divide between the military might of the general population and the government is much, much greater than it was back then. I'm willing to bet that guys like Jefferson would be aghast at that fact and how it's been abused in the past.

jag

I'd agree with that entirely. It is sad that most Americans probably believe that the government gives them their rights, not the other way around. But that is what our country has become.

It doesn't change the fact that technologies and times have changed. When the Framers lived there was not a drug dealer armed with an uzi on every corner of a major city. There was not guns that could fire 18 bullets a second accessible to 15 year old children in gangs. Times have changed, the Constitution should be able to change with them. I'm not saying to ban guns. I am simply saying some level of control is not a bad thing.

[Matt]

But if the argument is about the intent of the Founding Fathers, as anyone who brings up the point of Militia is - which is the only credible argument one could make really, then the thoughts of Founding Father Jefferson could not be a better source of argument.

Well, that is definitely true enough. Never the less, I can see where the argument comes from, even if I do not agree with it.

[StorminNorman]

Yeah, I don't even have any huge allegiance to the idea of letting people own guns.
I'm just saying, the constitution clearly says that it's a right of the people to own them (Why? because an armed militia is necessary), so people shouldn't waste their time about arguing whether or not the Constitution grants us that right, but rather, should be arguing about whether that AMENDMENT should be updated or removed.

The idea of amending or removing any of the ten Bills of Rights is such a scary idea I would hope no one would really consider doing it.

[Matt]

The idea of amending or removing any of the ten Bills of Rights is such a scary idea I would hope no one would really consider doing it.

Do you believe an M-16 should be accessible to any person who wishes to buy it, Norm?

I'm not sure we should remove or amend any of the Bills of Rights, but I don't think it is a bad idea to allow restrictions on guns.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

*yawn* Are you done yet? Again Wilhelm, the sentence is at best questionable. The argument can be made. I do not see why you have so much trouble accepting that someone might read something differently than you do (okay, actually I can see why YOU would have so much trouble with that notion...but I digress).So are you saying that if you are not an official member of a militia, you do not qualify as "PEOPLE" ?!?

That's outrageous, and also, the only way that the militia argument works.

I'm the one who should be yawning. What do you not understand about this SENTENCE (which, unlike the the clause at the beginning, stands alone in clear meaning),
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." ???


Please, if I'm so wrong, can you explain to me how non-militia members do not count as "THE people". :huh:

Is my grandmother not a PERSON?
Are a group of nuns not PEOPLE?

[jaguarr]

I'd agree with that entirely. It is sad that most Americans probably believe that the government gives them their rights, not the other way around. But that is what our country has become.

It doesn't change the fact that technologies and times have changed. When the Framers lived there was not a drug dealer armed with an uzi on every corner of a major city. There was not guns that could fire 18 bullets a second accessible to 15 year old children in gangs. Times have changed, the Constitution should be able to change with them. I'm not saying to ban guns. I am simply saying some level of control is not a bad thing.

I'm against changing the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Why? Because I believe the people who could/would like to do something of that nature would NOT do it with the best interests of everyone in America at heart nor do I think they would preserve the spirit of the originally intended documents and the rules they outline. In this day and age of partisanship, corporate greed and influence in government, corruption and the added complexity that our system has in comparison to what it was at it's inception due to sheer size, I believe it impossible to modify those documents in any fashion even remotely resembling objective.

The 15 year old gang-bangers might have automatic weapons, but the National Guard and Army have grenades, rocket launchers, microwave weapons, satellite tracking, wire tapping and a whole lot more at their disposal that 15 year old does not.

jag

[StorminNorman]

Do you believe an M-16 should be accessible to any person who wishes to buy it, Norm?

I'm not sure we should remove or amend any of the Bills of Rights, but I don't think it is a bad idea to allow restrictions on guns.

Barring any criminal activity in his past, I would have a hard time arguing the case that anyone who wants an M-16 shouldn't be able to access it.

[Tron5000]

Barring any criminal activity in his past, I would have a hard time arguing the case that anyone who wants an M-16 shouldn't be able to access it.

Hey, I have an AK-47, and I always have to hear people say, "But why do you need such a weapon?"

It's not a matter of necessity. Do you need a 42-inch flat-panel in your home? I don't think anyone would argue that such an expenditure would be a "need."

But I'll tell you this: Once you shoot that baby at the 200-yd outdoor range, you DO realize that you need this weapon, and you question how you ever made it this far in life without one. Just awesome.

[jaguarr]

Hey, I have an AK-47, and I always have to hear people say, "But why do you need such a weapon?"

It's not a matter of necessity. Do you need a 42-inch flat-panel in your home? I don't think anyone would argue that such an expenditure would be a "need."

But I'll tell you this: Once you shoot that baby at the 200-yd outdoor range, you DO realize that you need this weapon, and you question how you ever made it this far in life without one. Just awesome.

Meh. Sniper rifles with a long-range scope and a silencer are where it's at. :twisted:

jag

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Hey, I have an AK-47, and I always have to hear people say, "But why do you need such a weapon?"

It's not a matter of necessity. Do you need a 42-inch flat-panel in your home? I don't think anyone would argue that such an expenditure would be a "need."

But I'll tell you this: Once you shoot that baby at the 200-yd outdoor range, you DO realize that you need this weapon, and you question how you ever made it this far in life without one. Just awesome.I could easily kill someone with a 42-inch flatscreen TV. Come down on their temple with the corner while they're sleeping?...They're deadly mothers.

[Tron5000]

Meh. Sniper rifles with a long-range scope and a silencer are where it's at. :twisted:

jag

I'll take one of those too, thanks. My roommate actually just ordered a Russian sniper rifle circa WWI. That should be lots of fun.

[hippie_hunter]

Do you believe an M-16 should be accessible to any person who wishes to buy it, Norm?

I'm not sure we should remove or amend any of the Bills of Rights, but I don't think it is a bad idea to allow restrictions on guns.

I have a friend who wants to become an avid gun collector and wants to have an M-16 someday, I see no reason for him to be denied one when he really isn't going to be using it all that much asides from having it a part of his collection and shooting it on occasion in his backyard.

[SuBe]

I have a friend who wants to become an avid gun collector and wants to have an M-16 someday, I see no reason for him to be denied one when he really isn't going to be using it all that much asides from having it a part of his collection and shooting it on occasion in his backyard.
Plus, M-16s pretty much have the stopping power of a Pencil. I can understand a ban on SAW's or something. But not an M-16a2. It doesn't make much sense.

Anyway, I heard a story a few years ago about how they decided which firearms to ban in the Assult weapons ban. Probably Tron can elaberate. But when they were going through which assault weopons to ban, Senators and Congressman had a catalog with just pictures in it of the weapon, and if it "looked" like an assualt weapon, it was banned. Apparently, the people that wrote the laws didn't know much about firearms in general, just what looked like what belonged in a Rambo Movie.

Like I said, M-16s are nothing more than a fancy looking rifle, but there are rifles you can buy at walmart with more stopping power.

[Arkady Rossovich]

Americans have the right to have guns. But this was written when any empire could take over America. Common sense is that Amendment should be changed,or even abolished. But people have had their weapons for so long..they don't want to get rid of it. Even when violence is done because of it.

[Marx]

I thought I'd bump the gun thread considering what's going on in the Obama one. :cwink:

As I said there, I think we can all agree that the process in which to legally obtain a firearm needs to be tightened. There are so many loopholes it's ridiculous!

[StorminNorman]

Americans have the right to have guns. But this was written when any empire could take over America. Common sense is that Amendment should be changed,or even abolished. But people have had their weapons for so long..they don't want to get rid of it. Even when violence is done because of it.

Common sense dictates that as soon as the Government is allowed to remove one of the bills of rights, it is not unforseeable that that same government could eventually be moved to remove others. This is my largest complain with such a ludicrous idea.

[zenile]

The government already does this by forbiding felons from possessing firearms. The constitution makes no mention of convicted felons being prohibited from possessing firearms in the 2nd amendment.

[cerealkiller182]

LOL together you both make a convincing argument. And i feel the same way I belief we cant get rid of the ammendment but i do believe in strict regulation

[SuBe]

LOL together you both make a convincing argument. And i feel the same way I belief we cant get rid of the ammendment but i do believe in strict regulation
I know this has been posted but this can't be posted enough;

Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." He also once stated, "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

[marcofthebeast]

Thomas Jefferson was such a bad ass. He could take out Jack Bauer, Solid Snake and Batman all before his noontime meal.

And as to a response to what Arkady wrote.

Just because the threat of empirical rule has waned. Doesn't mean the threat does not exist. Once we get rid of the 2nd amendment we are more likely to be mistreated especially by our own government.

[SuBe]

Thomas Jefferson was such a bad ass. He could take out Jack Bauer, Solid Snake and Batman all before his noontime meal.


That is the Truth, I read it at www.snopes.com/jefferson/is/such/a/badass/he/could/beat/jbss/and/bm (http://www.snopes.com/jefferson/is/such/a/badass/he/could/beat/jbss/and/bm)

[The Senator]

Thomas Jefferson was such a bad ass. He could take out Jack Bauer, Solid Snake and Batman all before his noontime meal.

And as to a response to what Arkady wrote.

Just because the threat of empirical rule has waned. Doesn't mean the threat does not exist. Once we get rid of the 2nd amendment we are more likely to be mistreated especially by our own government.

I always wonder why people consider Jefferson the founder of the modern day Democratic Party. He favored an extremely limited government, adamantly opposed Alexander Hamilton's call for a national bank, and opposed neutrality in foreign affairs. Today's Democratic Party favors big government, apparent neutrality in global affairs, and is just as guilty of regulating and spending taxpayers' money as it pleases. Not to mention Jefferson was the founder of the early Republican Party.

The modern day Democratic Party began with the influence of FDR. You can't go all the way back and claim that a figure such as Jefferson founded this party when 1) he didn't and 2) his political views did not line up with the Democratic Party.

[Kelly]

Americans have the right to have guns. But this was written when any empire could take over America. Common sense is that Amendment should be changed,or even abolished. But people have had their weapons for so long..they don't want to get rid of it. Even when violence is done because of it.


Yes, because crime is soooo much less in countries with very strict gun control laws......yeah....(insert sarcasm at any time)

[marcofthebeast]

I always wonder why people consider Jefferson the founder of the modern day Democratic Party. He favored an extremely limited government, adamantly opposed Alexander Hamilton's call for a national bank, and opposed neutrality in foreign affairs. Today's Democratic Party favors big government, apparent neutrality in global affairs, and is just as guilty of regulating and spending taxpayers' money as it pleases. Not to mention Jefferson was the founder of the early Republican Party.

The modern day Democratic Party began with the influence of FDR. You can't go all the way back and claim that a figure such as Jefferson founded this party when 1) he didn't and 2) his political views did not line up with the Democratic Party.

I don't know were I mention Jefferson being a Democrat, but I'll throw my chips in none the less.
Jefferson founded the Democrat-Republican party the parties eventually split with Andrew Jackson pushing the Democrat party to were it currently is. The Democrat-Republican party was created because Jefferson opposed having a strong national government (Federalist) and having a national bank (Whigs).

Jefferson was a liberal in the classic sense, and definitely has more in common with modern republicans then democrats and even more in common with Libertarians. If old Jeff were alive now he would probably be a Libertarian or an Anarcho-Capitalist.

[The Senator]

I don't know were I mention Jefferson being a Democrat, but I'll throw my chips in none the less.
Jefferson founded the Democrat-Republican party the parties eventually split with Andrew Jackson pushing the Democrat party to were it currently is. The Democrat-Republican party was created because Jefferson opposed having a strong national government (Federalist) and having a national bank (Whigs).

Jefferson was a liberal in the classic sense, and definitely has more in common with modern republicans then democrats and even more in common with Libertarians. If old Jeff were alive now he would probably be a Libertarian or an Anarcho-Capitalist.

You didn't mention Jefferson being a Democrat; I wanted to add my two cents on Jefferson.

[marcofthebeast]

You didn't mention Jefferson being a Democrat; I wanted to add my two cents on Jefferson.

That's cool, I didn't know much people considered Jefferson a Democrat. The meaning of liberal then is completely different for what is used for now. I think that is what confuses people.

[Handsome Rob]

Story in The Tennessean (Nashville Newspaper) about a concealed-carry citizen foiling two armed robbers (and killing one of them):

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080427/NEWS03/80427025

A would-be robber at an East Nashville liquor store was shot and killed Saturday night after a customer opened fire, Metro police said.

Two men entered Sinkers Wine & Spirits on Gallatin Road around 10 p.m. and attempted to rob the store with handguns, Capt. David Imhof said. During the robbery, a customer in his early 20s took out a handgun of his own and began a shootout among the three men, Imhof said.

One of the robbery suspects ran off, but the other collapsed outside the store due to his injuries, Imhof said. He was taken to Skyline Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead.

The killed suspect, whose name has not been released, was described as a black 20-year-old from Memphis. The remaining suspect, described as a 5-foot, 7-inch black man, was still on the loose Sunday night, Imhof said.

The customer who fired on the robbery suspects had a lawful carry permit, Imhof said.

“A citizen, like a police officer, has the right to utilize deadly force if there is a threat of serious bodily injury or harm,” Imhof said.

The customer, described as in his early 20s, was interviewed and released by police. He has not been charged.

The case is still under investigation, Imhof said.

[Kelly]

That's cool, I didn't know much people considered Jefferson a Democrat. The meaning of liberal then is completely different for what is used for now. I think that is what confuses people.

Yes Republicans and Democrats were pretty much opposite of what you see today.

[Marx]

POLICY SHIFT EXPANDS GUN RIGHTS IN PARKS
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/new-policy-oks-concealed-guns-in-national-parks/

The Bush administration Friday announced a new policy allowing people to carry concealed firearms in nearly every national park and wildlife refuge.

The move changes a nearly 25-year-old policy that only permitted firearms to be carried in areas of parks that are specifically designated for hunting and target practice.

According to the Department of Interior, the new rules apply to national parks and refuges located in states that allow people to carry concealed weapons, and a person carrying a concealed weapon must have proper authorization from the state where the park or refuge is located.

Forty-eight states allow people to carry concealed firearms; only Illinois and Wisconsin do not.

[Kelly]

POLICY SHIFT EXPANDS GUN RIGHTS IN PARKS
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/06/new-policy-oks-concealed-guns-in-national-parks/


Well, for me this is good. I travel to Tennessee alot, and spend an enormous amount of time in the national parks in that region......so it will be nice to not have to hide my gun in the hotel when I go hiking.

[Handsome Rob]

Well, for me this is good. I travel to Tennessee alot, and spend an enormous amount of time in the national parks in that region......so it will be nice to not have to hide my gun in the hotel when I go hiking.

People hiking in the Smokies now have a little more protection against black bears. :up:

[The Senator]

This is such a stupid decision. Violent crimes against park rangers have been escalating in recent years, so what does the Bush administration do? They make it easier for (prospective) criminals to carry weapons in our national parks and make the jobs of every single park ranger all the more difficult. It is bad enough having to deal with violent offenders who physically want to harm park rangers; it's even worse when those same rangers have to worry about being shot by some ass legally hiding a weapon.

Moreover, 77% of employees for the Fish and Wildlife Service disagree with this decision on the basis of 1) the crime scenario I just outlined, and 2) the fact that it makes it easier for people to hunt endangered or threatened species in parks across the country. Our national parks are not automatic hunting grounds, but that is essentially what the Bush administration just made them.

Oh, and one more reason why Bush is no Ronald Reagan: Reagan supported the concealed weapons ban which the Bush administration reversed. Reagan may not know a damn thing about economics, but he was at least intelligent enough to realize the potential for harm which exists by allowing people to carry concealed weapons in our national parks.

[Kelly]

People hiking in the Smokies now have a little more protection against black bears. :up:

lol, well to be honest, it would stay in the glove box. :woot:

[BlackLantern]

I support the right to bear arms....but I don't think a person needs a grenade launcher and an AK-47 to go hunting

[Marx]

I support the right to bear arms....but I don't think a person needs a grenade launcher and an AK-47 to go hunting

If you're 'hunting from helicopter'...you would!

I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself! :funny:

[jaguarr]

I support the right to bear arms....

What about the right to arm bears?

jag

[jaguarr]

If you're 'hunting from helicopter'...you would!

I'm sorry, I just couldn't help myself! :funny:

I think we need to put a time window on Palin jokes, where there comes a time that they are no longer considered poignant or acceptable. Sayyyyy.....the next ten years and then after that it has to stop?

jag

[Addendum]

I support the right to bear arms....

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/8388/1therighttobeararmsaj2.jpg

[Paradyme]

I support the right to bear arms....but I don't think a person needs a grenade launcher and an AK-47 to go hunting

I know you said you weren't against guns but I'd like to make a generalized statement.

People against guns/gun rights don't understand that all you're effectively doing is removing the right for people to protect themselves. They also believe that this will immediately stop all crime. No, in fact, I would be willing to bet that there would be a dramatic rise in murders, robberies, etc.

[Addendum]

A person saying they don't see a reason why a person needs a AK-47, or a grenade launcher, or an RPG doesn't mean that that person can not defend themselves. There's a multitude of handguns, shotguns, and rifles that a law-abiding citizen can purchase for home protection.

I own a 12 gauge with double ought buckshot. Fortunately I've never had to fire it at any one breaking in. I've had a couple close calls, but the distinctive sound made by a pump shotgun when it loads a cartridge in a chamber scared them off.

[The Senator]

I know you said you weren't against guns but I'd like to make a generalized statement.

People against guns/gun rights don't understand that all you're effectively doing is removing the right for people to protect themselves. They also believe that this will immediately stop all crime. No, in fact, I would be willing to bet that there would be a dramatic rise in murders, robberies, etc.

But why do people need assault rifles to defend themselves when there are more reasonable weapons out there which would accomplish the same goal?

[SuBe]

God love the shot gun. I have a Mossberg 500, no need for anything else!

[BlackLantern]

who is going to stop the people buying guns illegally? all overlegislation does is hinder the law abiding folks....I own a small handgun I keep in my apartment, but that's it....I'm not that guy with 4 assault rifles and a shotgun

[jaguarr]

If you break into my house, I will napalm you and shoot you with a L.A.W. Rocket while tazing you and dousing you with Agent Orange just before you step on a land mine.

jag

[SuBe]

But why do people need assault rifles to defend themselves when there are more reasonable weapons out there which would accomplish the same goal?
I would say that when, and this is going to happen eventually, because it always does, that there is a Revolution in this country, the people will need weapons to defend themselves from Government. If we ban all guns, we can only revolt with forks and spoons. This was the reason this was written into the constitution, so people can defend themselves against a tyrranical Government.

[The Senator]

I would say that when, and this is going to happen eventually, because it always does, that there is a Revolution in this country, the people will need weopens to defend themselves from Government. If we ban all guns, we can only revolt with forks and spoons. This was the reason this was written into the constitution, so people can defend themselves agains a tyrranical Government.

Well I'm sure an AK-47 will do wonders against a tank...

[BlackLantern]

If you break into my house, I will napalm you and shoot you with a L.A.W. Rocket while tazing you and dousing you with Agent Orange just before you step on a land mine.

jag

Dude..I just wanted to borrow a cup of sugar....:csad:

[The Lizard]

I've always found it ironic that Hollywood is predominantly liberal, which you would think would mean strict gun-control support.

I have yet to own a gun, but I always feel most inclined to go buy one after seeing any typical Hollywood movie where people are threatened by psychos or home-invaded or raped or kidnapped, etc etc...

[hammerhedd11]

What are your guys thoughts on gun control?

[hammerhedd11]

Can a mod change the title please? I wrote "of" instead of "or".

[The Senator]

I believe that anything which fires more than one bullet per shot has no place in our society other than as an ammunition-less display piece.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm for reasonable gun control. Background checks, certain types of restrictions, and whatnot are necessary, but over all I'm a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and the efforts of the NRA.

[SuperFerret]

I'm for gun control. I hate guns, and would like them banned, but I'm aware that that's impossible, so I favor as many limits on them as are reasonable.

[hippie_hunter]

I'm for gun control. I hate guns, and would like them banned, but I'm aware that that's impossible, so I favor as many limits on them as are reasonable.

I favor as many limits on free speech as are reasonable :o

[SuperFerret]

I favor as many limits on free speech as are reasonable :o

What you say is difficult to regulate, not so much with firearms. But while we're on it, I feel that the press has too much freedom sometimes.

[hippie_hunter]

What you say is difficult to regulate, not so much with firearms. But while we're on it, I feel that the press has too much freedom sometimes.

Firearms can be just as difficult to regulate. If a person wants a gun, they will get it one way or another. And it can be easy to regulate free speech. Just ask China.

And the press has the perfect amount of freedom. As long as no harm or damage is caused or intended, or if national security isn't violated, the press should be able to do as they please.

[hammerhedd11]

I'm for reasonable gun control. Background checks, certain types of restrictions, and whatnot are necessary, but over all I'm a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and the efforts of the NRA.

I'm gonna have to agree with you. While I don't think it should be impossible to get a gun, I think some background checks are very warranted. The reason I bring this subject up is that there is a rise in gang violence in my city and much of it taking place in my neighborhood. It has gotten to the point where it is too dangerous to go walk at night. My family is now looking to buy a gun and we have started to attend shooting ranges. While I think it would be horrible to have to take a life, I am prepared to do what's necessary to protect my family and myself.

[souvlaki]

I believe that anything which fires more than one bullet per shot has no place in our society other than as an ammunition-less display piece.

I agree. What I'm curious about is why don't they just outlaw the sale of ammunition? I couldn't care less if someone wants a gun to put on display (as long as they undergo the same background checks that are required now), but it seems like going after the sale of ammunition would be a reasonable way to bypass the second amendment.

[hippie_hunter]

Where do you live hammerhedd?

[SuperFerret]

Firearms can be just as difficult to regulate. If a person wants a gun, they will get it one way or another. And it can be easy to regulate free speech. Just ask China.

Yeah, and if they go around the controls on guns, then they are doing something illegal. I don't feel that anyone who wants to legally have a gun should take measures that go beyond the limits of gun control. If you want it that badly, go through the motions.

And the press has the perfect amount of freedom. As long as no harm or damage is caused or intended, or if national security isn't violated, the press should be able to do as they please.

The press has too much freedom when they are legally able to go to people's houses and intrude on their privacy immediately after a tragedy. If you're in public office, then that's your problem for being in that position. The press should be more respectful of the privacy of private citizens, and limiting the freedom of the press in that respect would be ideal.

[Handsome Rob]

I agree. What I'm curious about is why don't they just outlaw the sale of ammunition? I couldn't care less if someone wants a gun to put on display (as long as they undergo the same background checks that are required now), but it seems like going after the sale of ammunition would be a reasonable way to bypass the second amendment.

And why would you want to "bypass" the second amendment? What if gov't decided it wanted to "bypass" the first amendment? Would you want them to have that ability?

The 10 Amendments are a Bill of Rights. Each of the 10 is just as important as any other.

[redfirebird2008]

And why would you want to "bypass" the second amendment? What if gov't decided it wanted to "bypass" the first amendment? Would you want them to have that ability?

The 10 Amendments are a Bill of Rights. Each of the 10 is just as important as any other.

So you're saying the first 10 amendments are unequivocally more important than later amendments? I think that's a ridiculous argument. I think civil rights are more important than gun rights, and I'll stand by that all damn day. Just because our country started out with slavery being legal doesn't mean that the first 10 amendments are automatically more important than later amendments. Just because it takes us a while to figure out how wrong we really are doesn't mean that an earlier act is more important.

Having said that, I fully support the 10 amendments including the 2nd amendment. People have a right to own guns and I fully support it.

[souvlaki]

And why would you want to "bypass" the second amendment? What if gov't decided it wanted to "bypass" the first amendment? Would you want them to have that ability?

The 10 Amendments are a Bill of Rights. Each of the 10 is just as important as any other.

Bypass was a wrong choice of words, but I see absolutely no reason why the right to bear arms means you have the right to own ammunition. Given the amount of gun violence in this country, I don't see any reason why someone can go down to their local Big 5 and get ammunition for a gun that can take another person's life. You can have your gun for all I care. That's fine and dandy. But I don't see why you should need to fire that gun.

[Addendum]

My view on gun control is this:

When one becomes of legal age to drive, one must first obtain a driver's license. This is done to protect society from the harm that can be done by a person who doesn't know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road.

How does that relate to owning and using a firearm? A firearm by itself is not a deadly device. In the hands of a person with no regard for the safety of others, it is deadly.

Therefore, I suggest mandatory firearm training for law-abiding citizens before the purchase of a firearm. Such training will demonstrate the damage a firearm can inflict, show the proper means of storing a firearm in the home to help reduce accidental shootings, and proper training in the use of a firearm including understanding the basic firearm safety rules. To show that those attending the course have a firm grasp of firearm safety, only those who pass the written test with a score of a 100% will graduate the course and will then be issued their permit. Anyone who doesn't pass the test will fail the course and will have to retake the test again. First timers and those who are retaking the course will have to pay a registration fee, which will be reasonably priced. Permits will be good for 1 year, and will then have to be renewed.

[Handsome Rob]

So you're saying the first 10 amendments are unequivocally more important than later amendments? I think that's a ridiculous argument. I think civil rights are more important than gun rights, and I'll stand by that all damn day. Just because our country started out with slavery being legal doesn't mean that the first 10 amendments are automatically more important than later amendments. Just because it takes us a while to figure out how wrong we really are doesn't mean that an earlier act is more important.

Having said that, I fully support the 10 amendments including the 2nd amendment. People have a right to own guns and I fully support it.

First the second oath of office, now this? How are you reading way too far into what I say to come up with assumptions that are blatantly incorrect? I was only talking about the Bill of Rights--I wasn't talking about any other amendments. I never said anything about amendments being less important than others. I was ONLY talking about the Bill of Rights and how I consider each of THOSE as important as the others.

Heck, why don't you also accuse me of disregarding the Articles of the Constitution and saying they weren't as important as the Bill of Rights, too, while you're at it? They're as much a part of the Constitution as the other amendments are. :huh:

[Handsome Rob]

Bypass was a wrong choice of words, but I see absolutely no reason why the right to bear arms means you have the right to own ammunition. Given the amount of gun violence in this country, I don't see any reason why someone can go down to their local Big 5 and get ammunition for a gun that can take another person's life. You can have your gun for all I care. That's fine and dandy. But I don't see why you should need to fire that gun.

But by banning the use of bullets you render firearms useless and in effect enact a ban on the usage of firearms. Imagine if government didn't like what you were saying in your pamphlets (put yourself back in the late 1700s). But, they knew you had a first amendment right to the freedom of the press. So, they decided to ban printing presses, instead. It's essentially the same thing as what you are suggesting. I don't agree with it.

[SuperFerret]

My view on gun control is this:

When one becomes of legal age to drive, one must first obtain a driver's license. This is done to protect society from the harm that can be done by a person who doesn't know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road.

How does that relate to owning and using a firearm? A firearm by itself is not a deadly device. In the hands of a person with no regard for the safety of others, it is deadly.

Therefore, I suggest mandatory firearm training for law-abiding citizens before the purchase of a firearm. Such training will demonstrate the damage a firearm can inflict, show the proper means of storing a firearm in the home to help reduce accidental shootings, and proper training in the use of a firearm including understanding the basic firearm safety rules. To show that those attending the course have a firm grasp of firearm safety, only those who pass the written test with a score of a 100% will graduate the course and will then be issued their permit. Anyone who doesn't pass the test will fail the course and will have to retake the test again. First timers and those who are retaking the course will have to pay a registration fee, which will be reasonably priced. Permits will be good for 1 year, and will then have to be renewed.

You do realize the harm that is caused by those who don't "know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road" yet still have a driver's license.

A firearm is a weapon, an easily misused weapon, especially considering the general stupidity of the human race. If there are a large number of people who can irresponsibly turn a vehicle into a deadly object, how many can turn a weapon into one?

[Addendum]

You do realize the harm that is caused by those who don't "know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road" yet still have a driver's license.

A firearm is a weapon, an easily misused weapon, especially considering the general stupidity of the human race. If there are a large number of people who can irresponsibly turn a vehicle into a deadly object, how many can turn a weapon into one?

That's why I'm in favor of mandatory driver's ed courses for those who make a habit of getting various driving and parking offense, and permanent suspension of licenses for those with a DUI, DWI, and/or vehicular homicide conviction

[SuperFerret]

That's why I'm in favor of mandatory driver's ed courses for those who make a habit of getting various driving and parking offenses

I'm in favor of making the requirements for driving much more strict. I'm not sure what needs to be done exactly, but something does.

Humans are stupid, dangerous animals, and each year, that opinion is justified.

[souvlaki]

But by banning the use of bullets you render firearms useless and in effect enact a ban on the usage of firearms. Imagine if government didn't like what you were saying in your pamphlets (put yourself back in the late 1700s). But, they knew you had a first amendment right to the freedom of the press. So, they decided to ban printing presses, instead. It's essentially the same thing as what you are suggesting. I don't agree with it.

If you can find me a printing press that is capable of taking another person's life I would see your point. That being said I'm sure I'm in the minority on this. One of my friends was the victim of gun violence so my opinion is probably more radical than most. Honestly, I'd be pretty happy with what Addendum proposed.

[Bill]

Bypass was a wrong choice of words, but I see absolutely no reason why the right to bear arms means you have the right to own ammunition. Given the amount of gun violence in this country, I don't see any reason why someone can go down to their local Big 5 and get ammunition for a gun that can take another person's life. You can have your gun for all I care. That's fine and dandy. But I don't see why you should need to fire that gun.

The problem is that very little gun violence in committed by those who own legally obtained guns or ammunition since both are brought in on the black market. So, your strategy will be extremely effective at disarming or rendering the arms of honest citizens useless, but very little effect on gun violence. And since the prospect of getting shot might keep the average criminal out of a person's home or business if there is knowledge of guns present, rendering them useless may actually increase gun violence.

No, thank you.

[Bill]

My view on gun control is this:

When one becomes of legal age to drive, one must first obtain a driver's license. This is done to protect society from the harm that can be done by a person who doesn't know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road.

How does that relate to owning and using a firearm? A firearm by itself is not a deadly device. In the hands of a person with no regard for the safety of others, it is deadly.

Therefore, I suggest mandatory firearm training for law-abiding citizens before the purchase of a firearm. Such training will demonstrate the damage a firearm can inflict, show the proper means of storing a firearm in the home to help reduce accidental shootings, and proper training in the use of a firearm including understanding the basic firearm safety rules. To show that those attending the course have a firm grasp of firearm safety, only those who pass the written test with a score of a 100% will graduate the course and will then be issued their permit. Anyone who doesn't pass the test will fail the course and will have to retake the test again. First timers and those who are retaking the course will have to pay a registration fee, which will be reasonably priced. Permits will be good for 1 year, and will then have to be renewed.

New York state has such a program in place, other than the renew after a year, which I think is too restrictive and could get expensive if the state politicians decide they need a raise.

I agree that a licensing program should be in place, but instead of a renewal there is a yearly qualification. IOW, you have to demonstrate you can properly use the firearm. But I also think that if you jump through the hoops, you should be able to own firearms unrestricted. Most of this is turning what should be a right into a well-regulated privilege.

[Malice]

I am for gun control if it can take out a tank, if it can blow a tank up, it can be banned.
Other than that, its legal to me.

[Nitehawk013]

I am in agreement with Malice.

Guns do not kill people. Therefore banning guns is a nonsense move. It is trying to treat a symptom instead of treating a disease.

Further, to quote Freud (who I otherwise feel was a loon and pervert) " fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity".

Guns are tools. No different than a hammer or a screwdriver. They are good in the hands of the responsible, and dangerous in the hands of fools.

[Malice]

bingo....

The only people hurt but gun bans, are those that want to stay legal.
The illegals will get guns illegally

[SuperT]

I'm one of the members of the camp that wouldn't care if they just banned guns all together.

What's the point?! There's been too many kids die from getting ahold of parents guns and shooting themselves because they think it's a toy or children taking them to school and shooting up half of the student body.

[Malice]

I'm one of the members of the camp that wouldn't care if they just banned guns all together.

What's the point?! There's been too many kids die from getting ahold of parents guns and shooting themselves because they think it's a toy or children taking them to school and shooting up half of the student body.

The moment you ban ALL guns..you will see a fundamental change in govt policy.

[Nitehawk013]

Is that not a classic lefty reaction?

Someone gets hurt by a gun = ban guns. Someone gets their feelings hurt by a off color slur = ban slurs as "hate speech". Someone gets fat and dies of heart disease form eating too much fast food = ban soda and trans-fats.

The answer to a lefty is BAN BAN BAN. Not educate. Not tell people to accept repsonsibility and pay for crimes/stupidity. NO...just ban anything that might in some way upset or hurt another person no matter how rare the thing is. Just ban it no matter how foolish the idea of a ban is or how loudly the majority speaks in opposition of a ban.

[Malice]

Back in the old days, when kids grew up on farms and had guns al over the place, this didn't happen as often. They were taught.

Kids are not taught now. That is the problem, education

[SuperT]

A kid shouldn't have a gun in the first place.

[Nitehawk013]

Im form Ohio. I know plenty of kids who have guns. They are taught how to use them, when to use them and are well versed in safety. They have never shot anythign but targets, turkey, deer and various other delicious animals.

[SuperT]

Sorry, I don't "get" giving kids guns and hunting.

[Malice]

I don't own any guns myself to be honest.
But my father-in-law that lives with us has a few. He got his first .22 rifle when he was ten years old.

I am all for giving kids a gun, if they are properly educated...not just "here is a gun, have fun"

Now I personally would not give a kid that young a gun, unless he really showed me he was responsible and respectful of it.

[SuBe]

This is my opinion, and therefore should be treated as such:

Why do we have the 2nd Amendment? What is the purpose of it? Why did the Founding Fathers find it SO important that they would include it in the Most important document ever written?

This is actually easy. You have a right to Free Speech, you have a Right to practice your Religion, you have a Right to live your life in accordince of your wishes, as long as it doesn't impose on the rights of another individual. The Government is there to PROTECT your rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. That is all.

Now, imagine that your speech is unpopular. You believe that the Government isn't working on behave of your interests. They decide that they are going to kidnap you in the middle of the night and inprison you for "reeducation". What recourse do you have? You are going to sue them? What does that mean? You are going to use the Government to fight a corrupt tyrannical Government? Good Luck.

Scenerio 2: You work all our life and save up as much money and Gold as possible. You invest in Gold because it's a good investment. Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, threatens your family, and wants your money and gold. What do you do? You let them? The Robbers hold you at bay, and if you had a gun, you could protect yourself, your family, and your property. But, guess what, Ammunition was outlawed, and the Robbers got their's from Canada and smuggled it into the Country. You and your family are dead, and your property is gone.

Your Rights to Free Speech, your Rights to Practice your Religion or lack thereof, ALL your rights are dependant on your ability to protect those Rights. The Government, if tyrranical, doesn't care what your think, look at China, look at Former Soviet Russia, they are willing to push the Cause of Government, they don't care whay you say or do, because THEY have to guns. They choose what is Legal already, if you don't have a right to protect yourself and your rights, you have nothing.

What if our Founding Father's didn't have Guns? How would they ever have Fought for Independence? You people need to stop thinking that our Government is there for you, you have to start thinking about what if the Government and the Political Class are there for themselves. They only want power, they only want your money, they only want you to work for them.

[SoulManX]

my view on gun control is this:

When one becomes of legal age to drive, one must first obtain a driver's license. This is done to protect society from the harm that can be done by a person who doesn't know how to safely operate their vehicle and who also lacks a basic grasp of the rules of the road.

How does that relate to owning and using a firearm? A firearm by itself is not a deadly device. In the hands of a person with no regard for the safety of others, it is deadly.

Therefore, i suggest mandatory firearm training for law-abiding citizens before the purchase of a firearm. Such training will demonstrate the damage a firearm can inflict, show the proper means of storing a firearm in the home to help reduce accidental shootings, and proper training in the use of a firearm including understanding the basic firearm safety rules. To show that those attending the course have a firm grasp of firearm safety, only those who pass the written test with a score of a 100% will graduate the course and will then be issued their permit. Anyone who doesn't pass the test will fail the course and will have to retake the test again. First timers and those who are retaking the course will have to pay a registration fee, which will be reasonably priced. Permits will be good for 1 year, and will then have to be renewed.

:up:

[SoulManX]

this is my opinion, and therefore should be treated as such:

Why do we have the 2nd amendment? What is the purpose of it? Why did the founding fathers find it so important that they would include it in the most important document ever written?

This is actually easy. You have a right to free speech, you have a right to practice your religion, you have a right to live your life in accordince of your wishes, as long as it doesn't impose on the rights of another individual. The government is there to protect your rights to life, liberty, and property. That is all.

Now, imagine that your speech is unpopular. You believe that the government isn't working on behave of your interests. They decide that they are going to kidnap you in the middle of the night and inprison you for "reeducation". What recourse do you have? You are going to sue them? What does that mean? You are going to use the government to fight a corrupt tyrannical government? Good luck.

Scenerio 2: You work all our life and save up as much money and gold as possible. You invest in gold because it's a good investment. Someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night, threatens your family, and wants your money and gold. What do you do? You let them? The robbers hold you at bay, and if you had a gun, you could protect yourself, your family, and your property. But, guess what, ammunition was outlawed, and the robbers got their's from canada and smuggled it into the country. You and your family are dead, and your property is gone.

Your rights to free speech, your rights to practice your religion or lack thereof, all your rights are dependant on your ability to protect those rights. The government, if tyrranical, doesn't care what your think, look at china, look at former soviet russia, they are willing to push the cause of government, they don't care whay you say or do, because they have to guns. They choose what is legal already, if you don't have a right to protect yourself and your rights, you have nothing.

What if our founding father's didn't have guns? How would they ever have fought for independence? You people need to stop thinking that our government is there for you, you have to start thinking about what if the government and the political class are there for themselves. They only want power, they only want your money, they only want you to work for them.

:up: :up:

[hippie_hunter]

I'm one of the members of the camp that wouldn't care if they just banned guns all together.

What's the point?! There's been too many kids die from getting ahold of parents guns and shooting themselves because they think it's a toy or children taking them to school and shooting up half of the student body.

Parents need to do a better job educating their children about firearms and a better job locking them up.

[The Senator]

I think it is ridiculous to ban hand guns and single-shot rifles. The former because I believe that the constitution declares that a citizen has the right to protect himself and his property; the latter because hunting is a sport which contributes greatly to local and state economic success. I do, however, believe that ammunition for automatic weapons should be outright banned. There is no rational reason, whatsoever, for a person to own an assault rifle. I believe that the intent of protecting one's life and/ or property should be to maim the assailant, not kill them. As a result, there is no need to use an assault rifle for protection. Furthermore, assault rifles cannot be successfully used as hunting devices considering they severely damage the animal in the process. More often than not, assault rifles have been used to commit murder or have been involved in illegal arms dealings, and I see them more as a burden on our justice system than a benefit.

If someone wants to own an assault rifle simply to have it as a part of their collection, then by all means, they should be able to own one. But ammunition for those weapons should be outright banned, in my opinion, of course.

[Paradyme]

bingo....

The only people hurt but gun bans, are those that want to stay legal.
The illegals will get guns illegally

Exactly. I've said before tons of time I don't understand how people can think that banning guns is going to stop a criminal from obtaining it illegally. All it does is effectively make every law abiding citizen a larger target for crime.

I used to hate guns because I didn't understand them. Once I got used to them and took a training course on how to properly handle a firearm I feel comfortable around them. I feel a mandatory firearm safety course should be required though. You should only have to take it once but it should still be in place.

[SuBe]

I think it is ridiculous to ban hand guns and single-shot rifles. The former because I believe that the constitution declares that a citizen has the right to protect himself and his property; the latter because hunting is a sport which contributes greatly to local and state economic success. I do, however, believe that ammunition for automatic weapons should be outright banned. There is no rational reason, whatsoever, for a person to own an assault rifle. I believe that the intent of protecting one's life and/ or property should be to maim the assailant, not kill them. As a result, there is no need to use an assault rifle for protection. Furthermore, assault rifles cannot be successfully used as hunting devices considering they severely damage the animal in the process. More often than not, assault rifles have been used to commit murder or have been involved in illegal arms dealings, and I see them more as a burden on our justice system than a benefit.

If someone wants to own an assault rifle simply to have it as a part of their collection, then by all means, they should be able to own one. But ammunition for those weapons should be outright banned, in my opinion, of course.
What if Ammunition for those weapons are the same as ammunition for "Single Shot" weapons? What if the person makes Ammunition?

Why can't people see that it's more of an issue to protect yourself FROM Governmental Tyrrany?

[The Senator]

What if Ammunition for those weapons are the same as ammunition for "Single Shot" weapons? What if the person makes Ammunition?

If the person makes ammunition, good for him. If that person uses the ammunition to commit a crime, then obviously he will have to be charged. But I do not believe that ammunition for these weapons should be readily available to the public, considering assault rifles have contributed to more harm than good when made available to the general public.


Why can't people see that it's more of an issue to protect yourself FROM Governmental Tyrrany?

As I have said many times before... good luck using your gun cabinet to combat a tank...

[SuBe]

If the person makes ammunition, good for him. If that person uses the ammunition to commit a crime, then obviously he will have to be charged. But I do not believe that ammunition for these weapons should be readily available to the public, considering assault rifles have contributed to more harm than good when made available to the general public.
Then, isn't it more of an issue if a Crime is Committed instead of the weapon being servicable?


As I have said many times before... good luck using your gun cabinet to combat a tank...And people said the same thing to the Colonists, except TANK was British Military.

[The Senator]

Then, isn't it more of an issue if a Crime is Committed instead of the weapon being servicable?

No. It is an issue of ensuring that a crime cannot be committed by weapons which have shown, time and time again, that they have no place in our society other than as devices used for mass destruction. School shootings, public shootings, arms dealing-- all of these things have, in several circumstances, been perpetrated by assault weapons.

At the very, very least, it is my opinion that assault weapons should not be available to anyone unless they are licensed to handle such a weapon. And the process to obtain such a license should be rigorous and intensive, complete with a background check and psychological evaluation (both of which I believe should be required to own a gun as it is).


And people said the same thing to the Colonists, except TANK was British Military.

But the British military didn't have nuclear weapons and enough arms to fill the state of Vermont...

[SuBe]

Jman, do you believe that even though our Government is as Strong as it is Militarilly, that we should just bow down to them? That we should never be able to defend ourselves from them? Just in Case?

[Faded To Deaf]

It should be control to point, with tolerance, if things progress worse, then we'll deal with it, hopefully rationally.

[SuperT]

I agree. There is no logical rhyme or reason why a person should own an assault rifle or any gun that shoots more then one bullet at the time.

There's just no reason a civilian or even an ex-Military member would need one once they are out in the regular populus.

[The Senator]

Jman, do you believe that even though our Government is as Strong as it is Militarilly, that we should just bow down to them? That we should never be able to defend ourselves from them? Just in Case?

I believe that our defense system is so strong, there is no way a group of ordinary citizens can successfully tackle the federal government if it were to somehow enslave us... guns or not... the only way for us to truly defeat the military would be if we had access to nuclear weapons, and frankly, I do not wish to see Bucktooth B. Redneck and his Backwoods Brigade have the liberty to walk into a store and be able to purchase a device which could level the entire NYC metropolitan area ...

[Malice]

I see it very similarly as SuBe does.

Owning guns is not a right to me, its a GIVEN/CONSTANT. You can own guns. Guns server numerous purposes.

To me, its what type is the issue. I am all for, allowing the govt to regulate who owns a freaking RPG or mini gun.

But for pistols/rifles/shotguns/and even assault rifles....they should be legal IMO.

[SuperT]

Please tell me a logical reason why a person needs an assault rifle?

[Malice]

Please tell me a logical reason why a person needs an assault rifle?

Tell me a logical reason why not?

[Paradoxium]

Tell me a logical reason why any career criminals would give a **** about gun laws to begin with?

In fact give me a logical reason why career criminals would not love tighter gun laws?

[Malice]

I heard this from a trainer...

Do you know how many homicides have occurred in Texas by Concealed Handgun Licensed carriers? meaning, how many people were killed, not in self defense by guys who had the permit and were carrying a gun?

ZERO

[SuBe]

Please tell me a logical reason why a person needs an assault rifle?
Defense against a Tyrranical Government?

[Paradoxium]

I sure career criminals quiver in their boots at the might of skinny college hippies or yuppies who can call 911 with their superduper Blackberries.

No they prefer to rob someone at gunpoint at an NRA convention.

It is perfectly logical :funny::up:

Part of me does wonder what the outcome would be for those college campus shootings (i.e. Virginia Tech), if the students were actually allowed to carry concealed weapons.

[SuBe]

I sure career criminals quiver in their boots at the might of skinny college hippies or yuppies who can call 911 with their superduper Blackberries.

No they prefer to rob someone at gunpoint at an NRA convention.

It is perfectly logical :funny::up:

Part of me does wonder what the outcome would be for those college campus shootings (i.e. Virginia Tech), if the students were actually allowed to carry concealed weapons.
Brilliant.

Or that Church shooter? Remember that last year? How was he stopped?

A lady with a CCW, that's how.

[danoyse]

Part of me does wonder what the outcome would be for those college campus shootings (i.e. Virginia Tech), if the students were actually allowed to carry concealed weapons.

I hear that one all the time. What are the odds that more people would have been shot with even more shooting going on from all directions? I really don't think the answer is to give all the students their own gun.

I'm in favor of sensible gun control. I don't think they should be banned. I think hunter's rights need to be protected, as well as the right for someone to own a gun if they choose.

But having grown up in a metro area where guns are rarely used for anything sensible, I think there needs to be a better way of controlling who gets their hands on the guns.

[hammerhedd11]

Where do you live hammerhedd?

Minnesota.

[SuperT]

Part of me does wonder what the outcome would be for those college campus shootings (i.e. Virginia Tech), if the students were actually allowed to carry concealed weapons.

What an idea just asking for trouble, and absolutely frightening.

We can barely drink responsbily, let alone being responsible with a damn gun on campus too. Plus I don't ever see that even remotely coming close to happening. And it never should.

If I had kids, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable sending them off to college knowing their roommate or the one next them could have gun in their dorm.

People are crazy these days.

[SuBe]

What an idea just asking for trouble, and absolutely frightening.

We can barely drink responsbily, let alone being responsible with a damn gun on campus too. Plus I don't ever see that even remotely coming close to happening. And it never should.

If I had kids, I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable sending them off to college knowing their roommate or the one next them could have gun in their dorm.

People are crazy these days.
What if that "kid" spent 4 years in the Marine Corps, where he was an Military Police Officer that is highly trained? Would that disqualify him from your dream world?

[SuperT]

Yep. I still wouldn't want him having a gun in a public dorm.

[dnno1]

I don't want kids to have guns, so I guess I'm for it.

[SuBe]

Yep. I still wouldn't want him having a gun in a public dorm.
So, if a kid with a gun goes on a shooting Rampage, you are fine with the Fact that it could take 5 minutes for Cops to get there, and by then it is possible to shoot, what 200+ bullets in 5 minutes? Instead of having a Trained Professional there that could actually save lives, you would rather see those lives wasted because of that ban?

You are ok with that? Yeah, that sounds reasonable. :whatever:

[Addendum]

Jman, do you believe that even though our Government is as Strong as it is Militarilly, that we should just bow down to them? That we should never be able to defend ourselves from them? Just in Case?

Saying that certain types of weapons shouldn't be owned by law-abiding citizens isn't "bowing down to a government".

I think it was back in 2007, when news broke of a "foiled terrorist plot" against Fort Dix, it gave me a good laugh. Because there was no way those idiots would have succeeded in their plan to breach the base, kill as many soldiers as possible, and then "retreat completely without any losses". The base can have up to 15,000 troops training there on the weekends, with about 3,000 or so actually working there.

I highly doubt that any stateside group, no matter how much it loves the US, no matter how much they believe in their cause, would have a chance against our nation's military. That's not "bowing down to a government" or failing to stand up to what someone calls "tyranny". It's simply being realistic.

[SuBe]

Saying that certain types of weapons shouldn't be owned by law-abiding citizens isn't "bowing down to a government".

I think it was back in 2007, when news broke of a "foiled terrorist plot" against Fort Dix, it gave me a good laugh. Because there was no way those idiots would have succeeded in their plan to breach the base, kill as many soldiers as possible, and then "retreat completely without any losses". The base can have up to 15,000 troops training there on the weekends, with about 3,000 or so actually working there.

I highly doubt that any stateside group, no matter how much it loves the US, no matter how much they believe in their cause, would have a chance against our nation's military. That's not "bowing down to a government" or failing to stand up to what someone calls "tyranny". It's simply being realistic.
1/3 of the Colonists didn't support the US's Indenpendence. 1/3 was apathetic. 1/3 fought for it. I'm in the 1/3 that would fight for it, you might not be, but that's that.

[Addendum]

I don't agree with some of the actions of the government, but it's not like they're acting how the British government did with the colonies

[amazingfantasy15]

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about gun control, mainly because I don't have any desire to ever own, much less fire a gun. I see the explanation of home defense used constantly, but find it kind of foolish. Here's why, say an intruder breaks into your house, if he had half a brain his first step would be to make sure said house was empty going to your or your kid's rooms first. So you hear him enter, get out of bed and since you're practicing gun safety, you get the gun from either it's hiding place and unlock the trigger lock or the safe it's kept in, then get the bullets and load the gun. What are the odds you've successfully accomplished making sure the gun is ready to fire before the halfway competent criminal/intruder has made it to your room and shot you (because you are getting a gun after all). I just don't think the having a gun (and using proper gun safety) for home protection works in a real life scenario.

[SuBe]

I don't agree with some of the actions of the government, but it's not like they're acting how the British government did with the colonies
Why, when the colonists fought Britian, it was over 15 days worth of work in Taxes, currently is is clost to 120 days worth of work in Taxes. They control every aspect of our life, from what we eat, what we drive, what we wear, to where we can go. They control what we see on TV to what we learn in School, to what we hear in Music. They control everything, we are in a more oppressed Society than they were.

[SuBe]

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about gun control, mainly because I don't have any desire to ever own, much less fire a gun. I see the explanation of home defense used constantly, but find it kind of foolish. Here's why, say an intruder breaks into your house, if he had half a brain his first step would be to make sure said house was empty going to your or your kid's rooms first. So you hear him enter, get out of bed and since you're practicing gun safety, you get the gun from either it's hiding place and unlock the trigger lock or the safe it's kept in, then get the bullets and load the gun. What are the odds you've successfully accomplished making sure the gun is ready to fire before the halfway competent criminal/intruder has made it to your room and shot you (because you are getting a gun after all). I just don't think the having a gun (and using proper gun safety) for home protection works in a real life scenario.You answered your own Scenerio. A properly trained individual would be able to unlock and arm his weapon in the dark and under duress. I can have my shot gun out in a matter of seconds. Locked and ready.

[hammerhedd11]

I'm not exactly sure how I feel about gun control, mainly because I don't have any desire to ever own, much less fire a gun. I see the explanation of home defense used constantly, but find it kind of foolish. Here's why, say an intruder breaks into your house, if he had half a brain his first step would be to make sure said house was empty going to your or your kid's rooms first. So you hear him enter, get out of bed and since you're practicing gun safety, you get the gun from either it's hiding place and unlock the trigger lock or the safe it's kept in, then get the bullets and load the gun. What are the odds you've successfully accomplished making sure the gun is ready to fire before the halfway competent criminal/intruder has made it to your room and shot you (because you are getting a gun after all). I just don't think the having a gun (and using proper gun safety) for home protection works in a real life scenario.

So it makes more sense for you to just not get a gun and let the man shoot you?

[Metamorpho1977]

I'm not for taking away the right to bear arms. I do however, believe that there should be some tighter regulations on who is allowed to purchase them. Even that won't keep criminals from getting them. There is an old saying. If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns.

[Addendum]

They control every aspect of our life, from what we eat

The nutrition plan isn't enforceable by law. The Food and Drug Administration makes sure that food is properly labeled and safe for consumption. Same with the regulations regarding tap water. I see no harm in maintaining safe food and water for all citizens.

what we drive
Driving is not a right but a privilege. Opinions may vary regarding global warming, but I don't see the harm in taking efforts to lower pollution. One approach is making sure the emissions from vehicles are tolerable, and that the engines in those vehicles get good mileage. I certainly don't trust car makers to have those thoughts in place when designing their vehicles.


what we wear
The military has always had a dress code. No complaints there. Businesses have dress codes regarding their employees, and some higher-end restaurants have a dress code for their clientele. When a citizen reports for jury duty, there is a dress code as well. Some school boards have instituted dress codes in an attempt to lower instances of fights and killings among students regarding sneakers or what color your clothes are.

to where we can go
Every country issues passports to their citizens who wish to travel abroad. The only limitations are those countries that the US has an embargo, and if one is a defendant in a criminal case and poses a flight risk.

They control what we see on TV
Paid channels such as HBO, Cinemax, and Showtime have no restriction of content. Cable television has some standards but compared to the standard channels, it is looser at certain times: Cartoon Network's Adult Swim section after Prime Time, Comedy Central's Secret Stash, and Turner Classic Movies Underground lineup (A few months ago, I was able to catch Coffy and Foxy Brown)

to what we learn in School
I don't see the problem in having a standard for what is taught in every school across the nation, rather than letting a school in the Appalachia region (or any other area) decide to focus on certain subjects and ignore others.

to what we hear in Music.
Stores such as Walmart have made arrangements with record companies to have edited versions of certain albums, or simply refuse to stock certain artists. I know I'm not going to see any album by Deicide or Carcass in Walmart, but I know where I can purchase their albums if I so choose. Besides, satellite radio has much better content than terrestrial radio can ever dream of.

They control everything, we are in a more oppressed Society than they were.
The only way I could agree with you is if I give up logic and reason and embrace paranoid delusions and knee jerk emotions.

[SuperT]

For pete sake! With the way SuBe is talking, you'd think we were all in the midst of the Revolutionary War!!!

[The Chairman]

I'm for reasonable gun control. Background checks, certain types of restrictions, and whatnot are necessary, but over all I'm a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and the efforts of the NRA.

I'm with him and danoyse to an extent. Sensible gun control is fine. But if a person with a family wants one for protection and has been proven reasonable enough to be allowed own one, than that person should have one.

[Addendum]

For peter sake! With the way SuBe is talking, you'd think we were all in the midst of the Revolutionary War!!!

Today you have universal health care, tomorrow it's "howdy comrade" :hehe:

[Paradoxium]

I hear that one all the time. What are the odds that more people would have been shot with even more shooting going on from all directions? I really don't think the answer is to give all the students their own gun.
If not the student at least the private security and the faculty members, no? The Virgina tech campus was a completely "gun free zone", they just never fathomed someone would actually "break the rules" and massacre a bunch of students... Having people gunned down is small price to pay in order to feel free of guns :huh:

Besides, most students are too broke ass poor to purchase firearms legally. It's the illegal stuff that is cheap. It's not like we are asking the government to subsidize people so everyone has a gun.

If we are concerned about guns, maybe we should have controls on knives, and matches. Those two things can kill people too. Hell, but I can rip the legs off a wooden chair and use it stab someone, maybe we should eliminate wooden chairs as well, and maybe wooden tables for small measure. There are pretty creative ways to kill people, in fact I am looking at some guitar strings right now, I can use those strings as well... sorry if I sound incredibly violent :o

[The Senator]

Allowing a bunch of drunk, inattentive, irrational college students the liberty to carry firearms with them on campus is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

[SuperFerret]

"Guns don't hurt people" is crap. Guns are weapons, they are intended to be used to hurt people. They are not tools like hammers and screwdrivers, as those tools have non-violent uses.

[The Senator]

Why, you can use a gun to open up a beer can and to turn on the telly! :wow:

[Malice]

I got a serious question....that everyone needs to answer before your next post.

In your next post answer the following

Where you live (rural, suburbs, inner city, or something of that nature)
State
Did you have a gu before the age of 16

Honestly, I can bet I know what you are going to see.

[The Senator]

I have lived in all of those areas before the age of 16 and the answer to all of them is "no."

[Malice]

Houston, suburbs
No

[SuperFerret]

I got a serious question....that everyone needs to answer before your next post.

In your next post answer the following

Where you live (rural, suburbs, inner city, or something of that nature)
State
Did you have a gu before the age of 16

Honestly, I can bet I know what you are going to see.

I know exactly what you're getting at here, and yes, I grew up in New York City (one of the most urban areas in the country), and no, I have never owned or even handled a gun in my life.

And yes, it does have a bearing on my dislike of guns. I'm aware that it's impossible to ban guns completely, but I've seen just how stupid, irresponsible and dangerous the average person can be, and I want to keep any weapon out of those hands.

[Malice]

I am almost willing to bet...those that grew up in more rural areas, who went hunting and had a gun early in life, see them as protection\toys\tools
They don't see them any differently than a hammer...granted a dangerous one

Those who didn't have one early in life, tend to veiw them in a more dangerous and violent way. Thru television news, "someone was shot today".....and "there was a mass shooting on campus today"

Its a generalization of course, but depending on how the gun was used in your childhood, will tell you alot on how you think about it growing up

[SuperFerret]

I am almost willing to bet...those that grew up in more rural areas, who went hunting and had a gun early in life, see them as protection\toys\tools
They don't see them any differently than a hammer...granted a dangerous one

Those who didn't have one early in life, tend to veiw them in a more dangerous and violent way. Thru television news, "someone was shot today".....and "there was a mass shooting on campus today"

Its a generalization of course, but depending on how the gun was used in your childhood, will tell you alot on how you think about it growing up

More reasons for why this debate will never end, and opinions will never change (or rarely change, I hate dealing in absolutes). Which is why I realize that my opinion (i.e. guns should be banned) is unrealistic, and why I favor gun control, which I hope will be strict enough to allow those who wish to get guns and own them responsibly to do so, and to limit the number of guns that fall into the hands of those who would use them irresponsibly.

[SuperT]

I got a serious question....that everyone needs to answer before your next post.

In your next post answer the following

Where you live (rural, suburbs, inner city, or something of that nature)
State
Did you have a gu before the age of 16

Honestly, I can bet I know what you are going to see.

- Born in Riverside CA, and lived in Orange and Huntington Beach. Now live in Indianapolis.
- I've never had a gun in my life. My mother wouldn't even let me and my brother play with fake toy guns

[danoyse]

Born in the Bronx, raised in NJ. Never owned a gun and never plan to.

[Handsome Rob]

"Guns don't hurt people" is crap. Guns are weapons, they are intended to be used to hurt people. They are not tools like hammers and screwdrivers, as those tools have non-violent uses.

I was attacked by a guy with a screwdriver, once, so forgive me if I don't care about what the "intended" use of an object is. And, I know people who use guns for competitive target shooting--what is violent about that? And what of the citizen who by merely displaying a gun stops a crime in progress. In that case, a gun was used in a non-violent manner to stop a violent action.

An object cannot be used except by an individual. And, that individual can use an object for good or evil purposes. So, it is the INDIVIDUAL that bears full responsibility for any action and the use of any tools to achieve said action.

But, I do agree with you on one thing (which you said a few posts down from the one I'm responding to): This debate will never end. :cwink:

[mclay18]

I got a serious question....that everyone needs to answer before your next post.

In your next post answer the following

Where you live (rural, suburbs, inner city, or something of that nature)
State
Did you have a gu before the age of 16

Honestly, I can bet I know what you are going to see.

I live in the suburbs of Durham, NC (I live in rural VA during my college semesters). And no, I did not have a gun and nor did I operate one. But my parents own a gun -- they've owned it since I was little and kept it locked up in a metal box in their closet. And they keep the bullets separate. So far to my knowledge, they'd never had to use it -- they got it "just in case."

But there was this incident at the high school I went to where one student (who was a gang member) had brought a gun and a fight broke out right after school ended between him and a rival gang member. No one got hurt, but several people were arrested. And there was an earlier instance where a person had brought a gun to campus and it accidentally went off -- the entire school went into lockdown, which was not fun.

I do support the 2nd Amendment rights, but there should be limits on what and how people obtain guns. Not to mention strict reinforcement of these limits and install metal detectors at entrances for at-risk schools and universities.

[Handsome Rob]

I got a serious question....that everyone needs to answer before your next post.

In your next post answer the following

Where you live (rural, suburbs, inner city, or something of that nature)
State
Did you have a gu before the age of 16

Honestly, I can bet I know what you are going to see.

I grew up in a medium-sized town in Mississippi. I did not own a gun until I got out of college, but I've been handling them since I was 7 or 8 (supervised and heavily educated as a child--by the time I was in high school, I could shoot guns by myself).

[SuperFerret]

I was attacked by a guy with a screwdriver, once, so forgive me if I don't care about what the "intended" use of an object is. And, I know people who use guns for competitive target shooting--what is violent about that? And what of the citizen who by merely displaying a gun stops a crime in progress. In that case, a gun was used in a non-violent manner to stop a violent action.

An object cannot be used except by an individual. And, that individual can use an object for good or evil purposes. So, it is the INDIVIDUAL that bears full responsibility for any action and the use of any tools to achieve said action.

But, I do agree with you on one thing (which you said a few posts down from the one I'm responding to): This debate will never end. :cwink:

Fine. Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people, as the saying goes. So wouldn't it make sense to keep guns away from these dangerous things we call "people".

Oh, and the act of firing a weapon is a violent act, despite the fact that in that case the action is not intended to harm anyone. And a citizen brandishing a gun in an attempt to stop a crime in progress has just raised the level of danger for themselves and others around them. Not a smart idea.

[danoyse]

If not the student at least the private security and the faculty members, no? The Virgina tech campus was a completely "gun free zone", they just never fathomed someone would actually "break the rules" and massacre a bunch of students... Having people gunned down is small price to pay in order to feel free of guns :huh:


I don't think most people would fathom an atrocity on the level of the Virginia Tech massacre could happen.

And I do think at the very least security should be armed. And faculty if they choose - although I think that gets tricky, because now that also gives more access to a gun to some psycho who couldn't get one otherwise.

I just don't think arming the entire college campus is the answer. They'd all be shooting at each other.

[Paradoxium]

"Guns don't hurt people" is crap. Guns are weapons, they are intended to be used to hurt people. They are not tools like hammers and screwdrivers, as those tools have non-violent uses.Things that can hurt people, but has non-violent uses therefore making it alright... is crap too. I'm sure people is alright with hanging with a ex-serial killer who happens to have a machete, whilst the ex-greenberret with the glock is obviously dangerous and therefore a big nono.

[justinlancaster]

There sure does seem to be a lot of people in here that are for gun control, yet have never handled or shot a gun before. I suggest before you declare the banning of all guns, you actually get familiar with one and then make an informed opinion.

[Paradoxium]

I don't think most people would fathom an atrocity on the level of the Virginia Tech massacre could happen.

And I do think at the very least security should be armed. And faculty if they choose - although I think that gets tricky, because now that also gives more access to a gun to some psycho who couldn't get one otherwise.

I just don't think arming the entire college campus is the answer. They'd all be shooting at each other.The Virginia Tech psycho was pretty methodical to begin with. It would be more efficient to get legal or illegal weapons than try to steal and get caught doing so. In the Virginia Tech case, it was legal. I also mentioned concealed (aka permit involved), not any drunk clown can get one - there are controls/filters by virtue of this. I never said anything about arming everyone, I said if they were allowed to carry concealed firearms, faculty members and security particularly - things would be different. But it ended up being a gun free zone for the law abiding citizen, and free to carry guns for the not so law abiding ones.

It's pretty safe to say, the sane ones have a moral barometer and are law abiding... but the reckless one - laws can and will never change their attitudes and behavior.

[chaseter]

Pyschos will get guns whether they are controlled or not. I am all for harder registration for such weapons but if a person wants to own a gun I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. I would support banning automatic weapons like assault rifles and uzi's and what not. But, I see no problem with handguns and hunting rifles.

[SuperFerret]

Things that can hurt people, but has non-violent uses therefore making it alright... is crap too. I'm sure people is alright with hanging with a ex-serial killer who happens to have a machete, whilst the ex-greenberret with the glock is obviously dangerous and therefore a big nono.

Weapons have no other purpose other than hurting people. That's the difference.

There sure does seem to be a lot of people in here that are for gun control, yet have never handled or shot a gun before. I suggest before you declare the banning of all guns, you actually get familiar with one and then make an informed opinion.

I have an informed opinion. Guns have the potential to be dangerous, if they didn't then they wouldn't be effective weapons. People have the potential to be irresponsible, if they didn't then the world would be a much better place, and we wouldn't need to be having this conversation. Guns plus people can equal danger, I doubt anyone can refute that. Gun control does not equal banning them, just keeping them out of the hands of those who should not own a weapon.

I'll be frank, I don't like guns. I don't like them for a multitude of reasons that I won't list here. I don't see a single reason as being good enough to justify owning one as a civilian. In my perfect world, guns would be banned and not needed. I am not stupid, and fully realize that banning guns is not possible and unconstitutional, I just don't understand how anyone could be against gun control, as it will not only prevent guns landing in the hands of those who misuse them, but make the penalties for those who do misuse them, or worse, own illegal firearms, much harsher. It baffles me.

[The Senator]

No-- drunk, irrational college students will be able to receive a conceal-carry permit and get a hold of guns, regardless of the processes they are forced to endure. Why? Because there will always, always, always be some moronic owner of a gun shop or some crazed public bureaucrat who feels the need to dance around laws and regulations because it is our God-given right to own dangerous weaponry. That's what happened with Virginia Tech; the assailant didn't receive a proper background check because the man in charge of the store was a self-righteous buffoon. If someone with such a blatant case of psychological illness was able to purchase several guns, then I can only imagine your "average college student" would be able to do so in a heartbeat.

[Paradoxium]

Weapons have no other purpose other than hurting people. That's the difference.
My point is, if you set the precedence of controlling something that can harm strictly speaking - fine. But you open this door as an argument too: harm is harm, how is harm any less because the tool has other utilities?

[chaseter]

Weapons have no other purpose other than hurting people. That's the difference.



I have an informed opinion. Guns have the potential to be dangerous, if they didn't then they wouldn't be effective weapons. People have the potential to be irresponsible, if they didn't then the world would be a much better place, and we wouldn't need to be having this conversation. Guns plus people can equal danger, I doubt anyone can refute that. Gun control does not equal banning them, just keeping them out of the hands of those who should not own a weapon.

I'll be frank, I don't like guns. I don't like them for a multitude of reasons that I won't list here. I don't see a single reason as being good enough to justify owning one as a civilian. In my perfect world, guns would be banned and not needed. I am not stupid, and fully realize that banning guns is not possible and unconstitutional, I just don't understand how anyone could be against gun control, as it will not only prevent guns landing in the hands of those who misuse them, but make the penalties for those who do misuse them, or worse, own illegal firearms, much harsher. It baffles me.
So banning guns, bows and arrows, large knives/swords, etc...would be justifiable because all they do is kill people?

[justinlancaster]

I have an informed opinion.

-Well according to post #84, you don't. You are commenting on firearms and you have never even held nor shot one.

Guns have the potential to be dangerous

-Yes, as does knives, bats, cars, bow and arrows.

if they didn't then they wouldn't be effective weapons. People have the potential to be irresponsible, if they didn't then the world would be a much better place, and we wouldn't need to be having this conversation. Guns plus people can equal danger, I doubt anyone can refute that. Gun control does not equal banning them, just keeping them out of the hands of those who should not own a weapon.

-How about we leave your loathing of the human race out of the gun argument. Its your opinion of what gun control is, that I have a problem with. You want to punish the law abiding citizen to catch the criminal.

as it will not only prevent guns landing in the hands of those who misuse them

-Criminals don't obey the law, hence the name.

but make the penalties for those who do misuse them, or worse, own illegal firearms, much harsher.

-Now you are on the right track. Instead of punishing the law abiding citizen who has committed no crime, lets go after the criminals and punish them to the full extent of the law.
[/quote]

-Once again I urge anyone who may be unfamiliar with or scared of firearms to visit your local gun range and talk to the people there. Gun owners are very respectful and nice people. There is nothing to be afraid of.

[chaseter]

Guns will get into the hands of criminals and psychos no matter what...it just may take longer or harder for them to get it but they will get it. Plus...you don't have to go to the gun store to get a gun in the criminal world:o

[SuperFerret]

Fine. I'm wrong. I'm not arguing this crap anymore. It's not like anything I do can change that.