FinallyRetired
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 1,322
Just holed himself inside a Johnson Space Center building demonstrating his 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
dex said:global warming
SoonToRetire said:You know, I sit here scratching my head about this gun control issue. I realize this is a hot button for many, and that's fine, but I find it interesting how the words "gun control" automatically generate such reactions, as if a police state is here to confiscate everyone's guns.
SoonToRetire said:Again, when I say gun control I mean taking steps to lessen the opportunity for the mentally deranged, the hoodlums, the terrorists, to get their hands on a handgun or military weapons and kill innocent Americans. I never thought this would be a controlversial subject. Background checks for criminal records, for mental problems, etc. I guess I'm pretty naive to think this is consistent with the 2nd amendment well regulated militia clause.
Yes, IIRC for every time someone defends themselves with a gun, there are eight incidents where people are either injured accidentally. I can think of my ex-girlfriend's sister shooting her finger tip off and a friend's boyfriend shooting his leg. I can also think of a suicide of a niece, a grandfather, and uncle as well as two brothers of a friend. I am also reminded that the guy across the street from my parents decided to shoot it out with the police (he was mentally ill). I also remember a friend's son getting in an argument with his roommate and getting shot to death.Texas Proud said:The one problem I have is that we can count the number of mass killings over the last.... lets say decade... with our fingers... the number of people who protected themselves with a gun is probably in the thousands if not the 10s of thousands..
I would argue that the Second Amendment has not been interpreted by the courts to allow individuals to own guns. However, I realize that there are six different ways of interpreting the amendment. My belief is that that the court have, in the few chances they have rules on the second amendment, allowed the government to pass laws that limit the carry of firearm (e.g., not allowing convicts to own guns). I think that in theory that the government could pass laws outlawing guns but I also believe that the government usually listens to the American people and a majority of American people want to continue to own guns.lets-retire said:Soon--The Bill of Rights does guarantee the right to bear arms, so the probability of the government coming to take away the firearms is probably remote. With that said, the government could conceivably restrict the purchase of firearms to the point they are essentially impossible to buy. This would in effect remove firearms form the hands of lawful owners. I think that is the more probable route than teh government coming to my house and taking my firearms away.
bssc said:I think that NRA has conditioned people so that any sort of gun control is the work of the devil. Look at Jim Zumbo who didn't approve of hunting prairie dogs with automatic weapons. An outdoor columnist and hunter, he made the mistake of questioning the NRA and is out of a column, job and TV show. That will teach him for thinking for himself.
SoonToRetire said:Dex, if the words "gun control" are equivalent to "abortion control" I suppose there is a lot of baggage that naturally arises, and I should be more sensitive to that. I've explained what I mean by gun control, and perhaps I should have used other words but not sure any two words would tell the story. I used enlightened laws before and that didn't do it... maybe gun responsibility?
let's retire (and dex) I can't conceive of laws that would become so stringent as to make gun ownership nearly impossible. If that were to happen, the 2nd amendment would be so violated that the Supreme Court would be completely ineffective, and we would have a lot of other problems.
My ideal would be a gun license similar to auto licensing, along with gun registration, or even bullet identification, which can be accomplished with modern technology. A sportsman or any law abiding citizen should have no problem with that, in fact, they should welcome it as a way of elevating the handling and ownership of guns to a professional level. I was an expert marksman in the military and was pretty proud of that. I thought I could take care of a weapon and hit my mark even with lots of things going on around me. It makes me sick to think of some good for nothing punk being able to buy a gun with almost no verification and acting out their sick little aggressions. I live close to DC and there are parts of our nation's capital I will not go into at night. If I packed a gun I think I could handle myself in a fair fight against these hoods but the best marksman doesn't do well with a bullet in the back. Or sitting in a classroom trying to get an education. Or sitting in an office at work.
Let's keep guns in the hands of rightful owners, but let's make it hard as hell for the irresponsible, the insane, the gutter punks to use guns as a substitute for the manhood (or womanhood) they lack.
saluki9 said:You are missing the point. I didn't need the NRA to tell me to write Zumbo's sponsors to tell them to fire him. Zumbo called certain weapons "terrorist weapons" and associated people who shoot them with terrorist. It was ignorant, and it spit in the face of the people that paid his salary. I'm sure you're familiar of the phrase "don't sh!t where you eat" well that is exactly what he did and he got what he deserved which was a reputation of 30+ year ruined in one night[\quote]
What I saw is someone trying to make a distinction between someone who hunted with a semi-automatic rifle and an automatic rifle, specifically an AK-47. I didn't see the Communist Chinese and Eastern European as his sponsors. What I did see is someone who attempted to make a distinction between one type of weapon and another get attacked for trying to make the distinction. It seemed like a very knee jerk reaction.
As for gun control. As a conservative when I hear that I feel the same way a liberal does when they here "free speech zones" "president George W Bush" etc. [\quote]I had not heard "free speech zones" however, I do know that if I mention Bush around my parents, who are very liberal, it will set them off. The same is true with the war in Iraqi. My dad is retired 1st Cav and has very strong opinions about what is going on over there. As mentioned above, abortion controls are another. On the other hand, neither of them can stand Hillary Clinton, probably because they have lived in Washington for the last 30 years so I know I can upset them by saying President Hillary.
I agree completely. It seems as if the left wants to ban all guns while the right wants no prohibitions.If it weren't for the political greed of the left there might actually be more gun control. The problem is that in their minds there is never enough "common sense" gun control. First it's one step, then once we have that, ban something else, make another law and on and on. I'm thankful they have been so greedy, hopefully nobody will want to touch it now.
dex said:For example, freedom of speach - if used improperly it can ruin people. And, laws do tend to gain wider coverage.
http://www.tortdeform.com/archives/2007/04/hiding_evidence_of_deadly_negl.htmlAt the behest of the gun lobby, Congress attached riders to the last three appropriation bills for the ATF—the Tiarht Amendments —barring the ATF from sharing crime gun trace data with municipalities or local law enforcement, except for data relating to a specific crime. Yes, our “tough on crime” Republican Congress decided it would be a good idea to make it impossible for local police departments and city governments to analyze where the criminals in their communities are getting illegal guns. This provision makes it impossible for cities that bear the brunt of the illegal gun problem to either target their law enforcement resources effectively against illegal guns within their jurisdiction, or to identify the gun dealers outside their jurisdiction who are supplying illegal guns to their communities and seek to have their reckless behavior enjoined by the courts.
BRING BACK THE BLACK PANTHERS! Gosh, the Perfesser sure is laying it on thick with the gun posts, isn't he? Columbine in the New River Valley really put the zap on his head.
Clearly the poor man is suffering from Posse-Comitatus-itis, a disorder characterized by itchy trigger fingers. As long as the fit is on him, we will never hear the end of his plaintive cries for universal gun ownership -- by force if necessary.
Fortunately I know the cure: Bring back the Black Panthers! In the 60s there was no more outspoken group of gun-rights enthusiasts. The Panthers marched in state capitols, bravely brandishing their firearms in defiance of those that would take away their Second Amendment rights.
No swifter cure for Posse-Comitatus-itis has been found! Soon open-carry laws were shutting down all over the place -- including California, where the sight of black folk with firearms worked so effectively on Governor Ronald Reagan's Posse-Comitatus-itis that he signed the Mulford Act.
Displays of armed negritude will work like lightning on the Perfesser's condition, and on the cracker community he serves.
Then we'll only have to think of ways to get him to shut up about everything else.