2nd amemdment

[maxama10]

Some members of ar15.com have been trying to do something positive for 2nd Amendment rights since the results of this past election day rolled in. Lots of people are scared about our future. Some are even panicking. I realized something had to be done. So a bunch of us started brain storming and came up with the idea to begin an effort to unite EVERYONE who has an interest in firearms or freedom in general. The purpose will be the rapid dissemination of information if and when anti-gun legislation is introduced in Congress. Rather than having hundreds of pro-gun online forums or organizations which are scattered and fragmented, our intended goal is to have at least one representative from every firearms message board, shooting club, the NRA, the GOA, the Citizen's Committee, manufacturers, dealers, gun shop owners, firearms magazines and publications, gun smiths, and as many gun owners as possible, etc all together under one roof, where we can rapidly plan and counter any threats to our freedom. Each group leader will also have the roll of passing on news to the members of their group. The goal is not to replace or be an alternative to any of these entities that already exist. The goal is to simply make sure that any information or ideas from any one body makes it to everyone else. Our effort isn't about making a profit. We will all be strictly volunteers. And while money may become an issue somewhere down the road (we are discussing hiring a lobbyist), the goal is not to require anyone to pay to become a member at this time or make donations. Instead, send those to the NRA, GOA or Citizen's Committee where they will be best put to use.

As of right now, me and those who have joined with me in this effort are planning the design of a website and a forum. The website will contain news updates, as well as contact info for all Congressional members at the federal and eventually even the state level. The forum area will have a private section where each group representative will be able to discuss efforts, make plans and make decisions about our direction. It will be an equal partnership and everyone will have an equal say in group matters. There will also be a sub-forum for every state, where planning and coordination of activities can take place at the local level.

If you would like to see how this all began, how the effort began to blossom and how it evolved, you can read the thread here:


http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=784480&page=1

But in short, if you don't have time to read through that whole thread, we want to create the firearms community equivalent of the Emergency Broadcast System. By having everyone with a firearms interest linked together in a close network, we can rapidly alert all gun owners and freedom loving Americans the moment a bill is introduced in Congress. And then together, we can effectively direct the response to such a situation. Depending on the situation at hand, we will have the ability to send mass emails, mass text messaging, get the information and instructions posted to every firearms website on the net and have everyone working toward the same task in a unified manner to create ONE VOICE. We can swamp the House and Senate leadership with phone calls and emails all at once. We can write and call our own senators and reps. We can plan marches at the state and national level. But by having everyone working together, and that is the key, we can do all of this at a much higher level and with much better coordination and success.

If you would like to join with us to make a stand for our 2A rights PM me, send an email to george.tincher@gmail.com or sign up and post in the thread linked above at www.ar15.com. Provide your contact info (email will be fine) and someone will let you know when the site and forum are up and running and you can join in. If you wish to represent your business, industry, club, online forum, publication or whatever, please let that be known so you can be granted special access to the private forum that will serve as the group's nucleus. Together we can prevent any future assault weapons bans or other restrictive legislation that threatens our freedom.

Thank you and God Bless.

-Max

[maxama10]

Here are some links to pre-formed letters you can send to your representatives to oppose any legislation that would tread on our second amendment

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=137&t=632921
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=137&t=570050

Feel free to send these around to family and friends and help get the word out.

here is just one sample


Honorable Senator/Congressman XXX,


As an avid sportsman and registered voter, I want to encourage you to work against the passage of any & all legislation that threatens to infringe upon every American’s constitutionally acknowledged right to keep & bear arms.

I fear that if left unchecked, gun control measures will continue to worsen to the point that the right to bear arms will be a hollow concept, and the individual citizen’s right to personal protection will be further negated. Rather than further limiting the types of weapons that honest, responsible, law-abiding citizens have the right to possess; I encourage you to focus your energies on increasing the consequences for those who illegally use firearms in the commission of violent crimes.

Senator/Congressman XXX, I must implore you to stand in opposition to any legislation that threatens to strangle my God given rights. I believe that you and your party will benefit by gaining the favor of gun owners such as myself and the millions of other Americans who step up to actively support their Second Amendment freedoms. I am deeply passionate about this issue, and I know several others who take gun control into serious consideration when entering the voting booth.

You only stand to benefit by supporting our inalienable right to bear arms.

Thank you for your time and I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

[Hilltop Customs]

what are the arguments for the ban? or for gun control in general?

lead to a safer place? blah blah blah.....any arguments that actually make sense?

[MoeMag]

Apparently these arguments are common sense...

Who really needs a handgun?
who really needs a semi auto rifle?
who really needs more than 10 rounds?

common sense right?

:cuss:

[grEnAlEins]

Apparently these arguments are common sense...

Who really needs a handgun?
who really needs a semi auto rifle?
who really needs more than 10 rounds?

common sense right?

:cuss:
You forgot who needs "armor piercing" rounds? And by the way we are expanding the definition of armor piercing to anything that can penetrate Type 1 body armor, which is not NIJ rated for ballistic protection, so this measure would even make the .22LR illegal due to its armor piercing nature :tard:

That one is my favorite Obama plan :rolleyes:

[Hilltop Customs]

I just want to hear the argument for limiting a persons right to buy something they want.

Its true guns can be used to bad things, but so can fertilizer....only the person who is buying something can determine if it is going to be used for good or bad. Is it right to inhibit someones right to shoot 30 rounds from their AK if it only used to shoot at paper targets? Who determines when something has a high enough probability of being used for a bad purpose to warrant a ban or legalization.

The whole idea of enacting a ban on an object, when millions of the objects already exist in the public's hands is stupid and a waste of governments time, and our tax dollars.

[Eagle]

Its true guns can be used to bad things, but so can fertilizer....

Fertilizer can be bad? In the great words of Beavis and Butthead-'plop plop plop! hehehehehe!'

[grEnAlEins]

Fertilizer can be bad?
Flashback to April 19, 1995 when a Ryder truck packed with primarily fertilizer pulled up to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City :(

[grEnAlEins]

I just want to hear the argument for limiting a persons right to buy something they want.
They are scary dangerous and WILL KILL ALL OF YOUR KIDS!!!! OMG OMG OMG OMG!! INANIMATE OBJECTS WILL KILL US ALL!! CAPS LOCK TO EMPHASIZE BILLY MAYS TACTICS!!!!1!

That about sums the argument up :rolleyes: :p

[maxama10]

I think the argument Obama gives is that the 2nd amendment only protects hunting and sportsmen and that "assault weapons" aka scary black rifles and such are meant to belong in the battle field only.

Which is an outright lie.

[grEnAlEins]

Which is an outright lie.
BUT I CAN SPEAK MORE LOUDLY THAN YOU, AND AM THEREFORE CORRECT!!
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/369/billyforpresaj9.jpg :p
This is a losing battle. People are far too stupid to get past the rudimentary fear of things that look scary to them or that they do not understand. Very few care about the Constitution anymore. Sad but true :(

[Hilltop Customs]

its the direction government is going, expanding, becoming all encompassing, give it a few years and Green will change from a movement to a regulation....its already started.(not saying Green is bad, government forcing something down our throats is)

Billy Mays vs Bill O'Reilly....who would win?

lol youtube "billy mays gangsta remix" so funny

[grEnAlEins]

Sadly, this is true.

That is a tough one. They both speak in caps lock so they are both equally correct.

That vid... I don't know whether to LOL or not... Did not blow my skirt up :argh: not that I wera skirts :ninja:

[Hilltop Customs]

ahhh come on you had to find some of the quotes funny....

"stop getting out of bed every night, just pee in the closet....with confidence, just pee in the closet. Its that easy"

"and we'll send you the worlds most powerful weed, and we'll send you the weed with lightning speed"

[Army]

Join the NRA. So far, 4 million NRA members are doing the work for nearly 100 million gun owners.

When the NRA becomes the largest, most powerful lobby in Washington, whose sole purpose is to safeguard the 2nd Amendment, no anti-Constitution legislation would have a chance of passing.

[Southpaw]

I just signed up Please do the same!

[grEnAlEins]

I just signed up Please do the same!
Good for you!!
Which magazine did you get? I am an America's 1st Freedom guy personally.

[Southpaw]

I picked the freedom one too. My dad is a life member and gets the other two and I can look through them whenever I am at there house.

I would have signed up as a life member BUT I have better plans for the $1000. I have been looking at getting into the CMP so I think I will get a NM AR. Maybe I can next year I can become a life member or if we get another stimulus check. That would sure piss off Obama :ninja:

[michbich]

Fertilizer can be bad? In the great words of Beavis and Butthead-'plop plop plop! hehehehehe!'
Just to go off topic a little. Fertilizer, amonium nitrate NH4NO3 (s) to be exact, is the explosive of choice used by the average terrorist because it's cost effective, easy to get and effective.

NH4NO3 (s) + O2 + energy (+210K) --------» H2(g) + N2 (g) + O2 (g) + H2O (g)

So 1 mol of solid produces 4 mols of gaz with a maximum T of 1242K. With 80grams of the solid, you produce 100L (22gallons) of gaz. Just imagine if your entier trunk is stuffed with that.

[grEnAlEins]

Join the NRA. So far, 4 million NRA members are doing the work for nearly 100 million gun owners.

When the NRA becomes the largest, most powerful lobby in Washington, whose sole purpose is to safeguard the 2nd Amendment, no anti-Constitution legislation would have a chance of passing.
To back this point up for those toying with the idea of joining remember this:

We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.

Make sure your voice is heard.

[grEnAlEins]

Just imagine if your entier trunk is stuffed with that.
No need to imagine it. It already happened in this country :(

[BobTheCow]

I just want to hear the argument for limiting a persons right to buy something they want.
I'm not taking a stand on the gun issue here, I have mixed feelings, but I'm curious to get your opinion on something based on this sentence. I ask because I generally agree with that sentiment, and would like to see how it extends for other people. I'm not simply trying to be contentious.

What's your opinion on marijuana?

[grEnAlEins]

What's your opinion on marijuana?
Not that you asked me, but I'll answer anywho...
I believe that it should be illegal, but decriminalized for cases of individual use. Assess a reasonable fine (essentially an excise and/or pigovian tax) and send the offender on their merry way. Distributors should be dealt with by way of criminal sanction, as they are now.

It is kinda like how I have the right to bear arms but must pay an elevated tax on firearms and ammunition.

[Hilltop Customs]

I'm not taking a stand on the gun issue here, I have mixed feelings, but I'm curious to get your opinion on something based on this sentence. I ask because I generally agree with that sentiment, and would like to see how it extends for other people. I'm not simply trying to be contentious.

What's your opinion on marijuana?

I think if it doesnt impede on others rights of the user or the people around them, theres no legitimate reason why it should not be legal.

I mention the rights of the user, because IMO highly addictive drugs trap and hold hostage the user....even if they want to quit it is extremely difficult. IMO drugs like this should be illegal....the only problem is different people have different traits when it comes to addiction, so kind of like this whole gun ban...who decides where to draw the line?

For marijuana I will dispute every common misconception out there: gateway drug, crime, violence, addictiveness.....they are lies and the ones which are not lies are only caused by the drugs illegality, not the drug itself.

If anyone disagrees, I would love to hear your thoughts.





On the original topic, why is this gun control issue hinged on the second amendment?
"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."
No one is taking away your right to bear arms, only certain type of arms....and plays straight into "common-sense" regulation, which is exactly what this ban is trying to do. So making an argument against the ban which is dependent on that amendment is IMO bound to fail.

[Coralis]

I know I'm on the minority side of this argument but if your going to own a gun then own it responsibly. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_re_us/child_charged;_ylt=AvtuTKI.Ur.Ks9.hpCA9fUnLLJ94

[PyRo]

I know I'm on the minority side of this argument but if your going to own a gun then own it responsibly. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_re_us/child_charged;_ylt=AvtuTKI.Ur.Ks9.hpCA9fUnLLJ94
Let's wait for the whole story. It's unlikely that he shot his father and friends for fun or because they wouldn't give him an ice cream cone.

[michbich]

I know I'm on the minority side of this argument but if your going to own a gun then own it responsibly. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_re_us/child_charged;_ylt=AvtuTKI.Ur.Ks9.hpCA9fUnLLJ94
Or like the man that wanted to make a hole in the wall with his gun and ended up killing his wife in the other room if my memory serves me well.

[Coralis]

Let's wait for the whole story. It's unlikely that he shot his father and friends for fun or because they wouldn't give him an ice cream cone.

The point being is that he had a 8 year old kid in the house and the gun wasnt secured to prevent unauthorized use.

[bornl33t]

I know I'm on the minority side of this argument but if your going to own a gun then own it responsibly. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081109/ap_on_re_us/child_charged;_ylt=AvtuTKI.Ur.Ks9.hpCA9fUnLLJ94

I say the same about vehicles...but no one listens. In fact my wife was rear ended by some one more concerned about a cigarette then being responsible as was demonstrated by the lack of insurance. I would say that I trust a gun owner over a motorist any day.

I hate chewing this through every time. For every incident, statistic or fact that one can present against gun ownership there are two to refute it. After the last election I'm surprised anyone considers the news to be a valid source of unbiased media information
www.justfacts.com

[grEnAlEins]

I mention the rights of the user, because IMO highly addictive drugs trap and hold hostage the user....even if they want to quit it is extremely difficult.
....
On the original topic, why is this gun control issue hinged on the second amendment?
"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."
No one is taking away your right to bear arms, only certain type of arms....and plays straight into "common-sense" regulation, which is exactly what this ban is trying to do. So making an argument against the ban which is dependent on that amendment is IMO bound to fail.
I would tend to disagree. I think you should have the right to ingest what you want, but you have the responsibility to deal with the consequences. If your drug use causes medical problems you should not be entitle to free medical care. You assumed the responsibility when you took the risk associated with usage and impaired yourself. That is my take on it.

They are not taking it away, they are just infringing upon it. Wait, didn't I read similar language about that somewhere... ;)
Common sense regulations are not a violation huh? Have you read and understood the legal language and ramifications of broad and arbitrary terms in the last ban? How about of the Obama sponsored legislation in Illinois that would have banned all handguns, all semi-autos, and anything that could fire a cartridge more powerful that outdated .22LR ammunition? But that is "common sense" and "for the greater good" and therefore not a violation of the US Constitution, right? I take it that you have not looked into the issue to this extent. Maybe you should do some reading. The full text of the last ban and regulations, and all of Obama's bills from Illinois, are available online. They are a significant impedance on my rights in my eyes. Shall not be infringed means just that. The fact that the the ban does directly violate the "spirit of the law" behind the amendment is a more than valid argument. In fact, it is the correct one to make. The only problem is that nobody cares about the Constitution anymore. It is a hollow document today. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to have a heavily armed populace nation wide. This was the reason for things like the CMP, which used to a function of the Dept. of the Army.

I leave you to ponder this:

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.


I would never invade the United States (mainland was implied), there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

[PyRo]

The point being is that he had a 8 year old kid in the house and the gun wasnt secured to prevent unauthorized use.
Where in the article does it say that?

[grEnAlEins]

Or like the man that wanted to make a hole in the wall with his gun and ended up killing his wife in the other room if my memory serves me well.
Here is what you need to understand though, the gun is not at fault. The man was stupid. If it was not this it would have been something else. Stupid people have a funny way of making bad/tragic things happen. Would you cry to ban sledgehammers if this retard used it to accidentally knock a wall down atop his wife? People who are stupid will be stupid and cause accidents without regard to the inanimate objects they are allowed to possess.

That said I feel bad for the guy. What a horrible situation to have happen... :(

[michbich]

Here is what you need to understand though, the gun is not at fault. The man was stupid. If it was not this it would have been something else. Stupid people have a funny way of making bad/tragic things happen. Would you cry to ban sledgehammers if this retard used it to accidentally knock a wall down atop his wife? People who are stupid will be stupid and cause accidents without regard to the inanimate objects they are allowed to possess.

That said I feel bad for the guy. What a horrible situation to have happen... :(
I understand what i wrote. I wasn't blaming the gun. The user is completly at fault.

[grEnAlEins]

I understand what i wrote. I wasn't blaming the gun. The user is completly at fault.
My mistake. I thought you were implying that was apparently not implied. I apologize :cheers:

[michbich]

On a relative note. Last summer, the gf brought her 2 brothers at my parent's cottage for vacation. Of coarse, at 9 and 11 years old they wanted to try my paintball markers. I decided that I could let the older hold it and shoot a little with supervision. So i air one up with no paint. Sure enough he turns arround and starts charging and shooting straigt at me. No paint mind you, but still...I could have just as well put a pod by automatism. The rest of the week, the only thing they shot were supersoakers and they had just as much fun.

Having said that, letting a 8yr even hold a firearm is completly out of the question in my book.

[Coralis]

Where in the article does it say that?


Probably the part where the 8 year kid shot two people (its kinda inferred) :rolleyes:

[grEnAlEins]

Having said that, letting a 8yr even hold a firearm is completly out of the question in my book.
I would say that it depends on the individuals involved and how it is done. There is a proper and improper way to to allow this sort of thing and a proper and improper method of supervision. Some kids can handle it and some cannot, some adults can adequately supervise the situation and some cannot. It also depends on the firearm, not that there should be a limit, but it should be a heavy consideration on the part of the parties responsible. I see no problem if it is done properly. I turned out alright :cool:

[maxama10]

I just want to add one of my favorite arguments of those for gun control. That the founding fathers were mistaken and didn't mean to put that comma in there before "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".




:rolleyes:

Not that anyone was arguing it, I just wanted to bring it up.

With that being said, the marijuana thing...

I used to tend to think it should be illegal, banned, horrible, the rest... I now tend to feel (and I don't smoke) that it should be legal but heavily regulated. Either to the point of or more than Alcohol.


Its more of a non-issue for me though than anything...



As far as children go, I think it depends. I myself at eight was very responsible with firearms, that was probably due to the fact that I grew up around them and had gun safety ingrained into my mind.

just my .02

[grEnAlEins]

Probably the part where the 8 year kid shot two people (its kinda inferred) :rolleyes:
But you still made a leap there. Maybe the firearm was kept in a safe with a key lock and junior found the key while snooping through father's sock drawer. You cannot assume something just because you think it is the only explanation. Besides it not lending itself to the facts, it makes you look the fool.

[grEnAlEins]

the founding fathers were mistaken and didn't mean to put that comma in there before "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".
Ya know, I can see that. I did not fully understand the concept of the comma the first time it was explained to me (in early elementary school). Those little buggers can be mighty tricky :rofl:

/joking for those who cannot read humor into the internets

[michbich]

The point being is that he had a 8 year old kid in the house and the gun wasnt secured to prevent unauthorized use.
Like grEnAlEins said, it's a leap to a conclusion. But i'm still on your side even if we don't have the full story. One can "assume" that it wasn't secured, wether in a safe or not. The kid still found a way to get his hands on the firearm, and for that reason i concider that the firearm wasn't secured correctly to prevent unauthorized use.

[Coralis]

But you still made a leap there. Maybe the firearm was kept in a safe with a key lock and junior found the key while snooping through father's sock drawer. You cannot assume something just because you think it is the only explanation. Besides it not lending itself to the facts, it makes you look the fool.


I made no leap if the gun was able to be accessed by the 8 year old kid , it was not properly secured period to assume otherwise is naive at best and foolish at worst. Like I said I know I'm in the minority but the right to own firearms also comes responsibilities to ensure the safe operation and storage of said firearms.

[grEnAlEins]

The kid still found a way to get his hands on the firearm, and for that reason i concider that the firearm wasn't secured correctly to prevent unauthorized use.
That is ridiculous. Kids can get into everything and anything.

Also have you not heard of the Constitutional right to privacy that we have hear. It states that government cannot regulate my behavior or mannerism in the sanctity of my home. Who are you to dictate or mandate what happens in someone else's private home? Also, who is anyone to determine the extent or validity of my Constitutional right?

Flip it around. What if I was given this sort of control over your right to free speech in the same way that you advocate control over my right to keep and bear arms without infringement. Try it for a day. For a full 24 hours I dictate the word that you are allowed to use, just like someone has decided what firearms I am allowed to use. I decide when and where you can speak, just like someone decided when and where my rights apply. I decide when your words threaten the public good, order, and a collective right. I now even dictate how you are allowed to speak/worship/write, even in your own home. Controlling, limiting, and infringing upon a right does not sound quite so great now, does it? You need to look at the reciprocal of what you are saying. What if what you advocate applied to you and what you hold dear? An infringement one one right is an infringement on all rights.

Our Bill of Rights is not negotiable. Not a single part, not ever.

[Coralis]

Hypothetical situation alert So lets see you leave your handgun on the table and little Gren picks it up and carries it to school and shoots one of his playmates you don't think you should be held liable for that or hell next time you're feeling too lazy to go to the store to pick up a six pack why not just toss the kid the keys

[grEnAlEins]

I made no leap if the gun was able to be accessed by the 8 year old kid , it was not properly secured period to assume otherwise is naive at best and foolish at worst. Like I said I know I'm in the minority but the right to own firearms also comes responsibilities to ensure the safe operation and storage of said firearms.
See above post. Who are you to dictate what is "proper?" That is very subjective.

Also that is a fallacy. Do you petitio principii much? You cannot beg the question and claim logic. That is foolish at best.

[michbich]

Ok, you lost me on that one. The only thing i said was that i concider that the firearm in that story wasn't secured correctly to prevent unauthorized use.

I don't care what you do, you can store your firearms however you want, but don't tell me that my ideas are ridiculous because you simply don't agree with them. I don't tell you that yours are rediculous because i don't agree.

[grEnAlEins]

Hypothetical situation alert So lets see you leave your handgun on the table and little Gren picks it up and carries it to school and shoots one of his playmates you don't think you should be held liable for that or hell next time you're feeling too lazy to go to the store to pick up a six pack why not just toss the kid the keys
First, I would not, and indeed do not, leave my handgun out in the opened. I see that as irresponsible. I never said that this would be a good idea. You should not be allowed to dictate how I live in my home though. There should be liability yes, but you should not assume what you did until the facts regarding storage are known.

Second, there is no little grEn, praise the Lord ;). He :D (or she :( ) is still a few years off, which is a good thing. Note: nothing against women, I just want my first rug-rat to be a dude :cool:

Third, that (the driving thing) is not remotely close to the same issue and is yet another logical fallacy :) I also try not to get too lazy :p

[Hilltop Customs]

I would tend to disagree. I think you should have the right to ingest what you want, but you have the responsibility to deal with the consequences. If your drug use causes medical problems you should not be entitle to free medical care. You assumed the responsibility when you took the risk associated with usage and impaired yourself. That is my take on it.

They are not taking it away, they are just infringing upon it. Wait, didn't I read similar language about that somewhere... ;)
Common sense regulations are not a violation huh? Have you read and understood the legal language and ramifications of broad and arbitrary terms in the last ban? How about of the Obama sponsored legislation in Illinois that would have banned all handguns, all semi-autos, and anything that could fire a cartridge more powerful that outdated .22LR ammunition? But that is "common sense" and "for the greater good" and therefore not a violation of the US Constitution, right? I take it that you have not looked into the issue to this extent. Maybe you should do some reading. The full text of the last ban and regulations, and all of Obama's bills from Illinois, are available online. They are a significant impedance on my rights in my eyes. Shall not be infringed means just that. The fact that the the ban does directly violate the "spirit of the law" behind the amendment is a more than valid argument. In fact, it is the correct one to make. The only problem is that nobody cares about the Constitution anymore. It is a hollow document today. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to have a heavily armed populace nation wide. This was the reason for things like the CMP, which used to a function of the Dept. of the Army.

I leave you to ponder this:

I wasnt trying to say I agree with the common sense regulation, I think any regulations which can be seen as common sense to one person can also be seen as extreme to another. I was saying basing an argument on the second amendment; which is interpretable in different ways, is not making a strong argument. I read a little bit last night, I think Obama wants to do something similar to Washington DC(I think it was), where weapons have to remain disassembled, locked and keyed, and separated from ammo, which would make them virtually useless for home defense, but the weapon would still be useful in an invasion like you mentioned.....so they are still useful for "security of State". I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm just saying that using the Second Amendment is not a good basis for stopping "common sense" regulation.

What I dont understand is: How can anyone use common sense as justification of a law? Yes, there are dumbass people out there who will use a gun to shoot a hole through a wall; yes, there are dumbass people out there who will leave guns out and allow accidents to occur....these people are at fault, not the guns. Stuff like this will happen even if there are only little pea shooters left for us to own. Just like people who leave their kids drowned in buckets of water, just like the guy who packed up his kids stuff when the child said he was going to run away(and the kid was found dead in the woods a few days later).....you cant have laws for common sense, because common sense is to f'ing broad and covers every moment of every day of every single persons life.

Impeding on my right to own what I want, and use what I own in a completely safe manner,(especially when the item in question could be used to protect myself and my country) goes against the basic foundation of this country. The belief that enforcing common sense comes from the banning and regulating items goes against common sense itself.

:cuss: /

All that being said.
If you cant keep a firearm in a safe situation at ALL time, you dont deserve one....PERIOD.

[Coralis]

I don't care what you do, you can store your firearms however you want, but don't tell me that my ideas are ridiculous because you simply don't agree with them. I don't tell you that yours are rediculous because i don't agree.

but that is the typical internet (I could also mention political) way of arguing a point , just make up facts and slander anyone that doesn't agree with your point of view .

edit ok this is a little harsh ,sorry and gets away from the point I wanted to make

[grEnAlEins]

but don't tell me that my ideas are ridiculous because you simply don't agree with them.
The circular logic had nothing to do with said claim of ridiculousness, right?

I respect your point of view, and understand where you are coming from; but, I feel you need to define things in objective terms and not beg the question with statement in order for it not to be ridiculous.

[grEnAlEins]

but that is the typical internet (I could also mention political) way of arguing a point
Can't the same be said about your circular logic? ;)

[Coralis]

and what circular logic was that .... that i believe that if you are going to own a firearm that you should do it responsibly or the fact that I feel that if a 8 year kid can access the family firearm without his parents knowledge that they didn't have it secured properly.

[grEnAlEins]

Leading causes of death: Heart Disease: 710,760 Cancer: 553,091 Stroke: 167,661 Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 122,009 Accidents: 97,900 Diabetes: 69,301 Influenza and pneumonia: 65,313 Alzheimer’s Disease: 49,558 Kidney diseases: 37,251 Septicemia: 31,224 Suicide: 29,350 Liver disease: 26,552 Hypertension/renal disease: 18,073 Homicide (all causes): 16,765 Pneumonitis: 16,636 All other combined: 391,904 Total deaths by gunshot: 28,663 Circumstances of gunshot deaths: 1. Suicide: 16,596 (53%) 2. Homicide: 10,806 (38%) 3. Accident: 774 (2.7%) 4. Police: 258 (0.9%) 5. Unknown: 229 (0.8%) As a percentage of the total U.S. population: -- Gunshot homicide deaths (10,806) : 0.0036% And for comparison purposes: -- Death by alcohol (19,358): 0.0062% [excl. alcohol-related accidents] In other words, you’re almost twice as likely to die of alcohol poisoning than by gunshot-homicide.

The source for this was the National Vital Statistics Reports for 2000, by the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr50/nvsr50_15.pdf). The analysis is accurate from what I can see. Guns are really not that dangerous compared to other issues and the accident rate is minuscule.

[grEnAlEins]

and what circular logic was that ....
Junior got the firearm because it was not properly secure. It was not properly secure based on the fact that junior got it.

It is a classic example of circular logic, and one which both of you used. All I am saying is taht you need to be objective and use sound logic (which will come when you cease to use a subjective standard, so it will work itself out).

[maxama10]

Woah guys! I go away for an hour and come back and :ninja:



The thing of it is, Coralis I think you're right, gun ownership comes with responsibilities and consequences if you fall short of those responsibilities. The problem here is that when these things happen gun control advocates are given an inch and take a mile.

The situation is regrettable however I say we wait until theres further news on this before discussing more. :)

[Coralis]

ok I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree apparently you have different ideas about parenting and responsibility than I do.

[grEnAlEins]

Woah guys! I go away for an hour and come back and :ninja:
It has been rather civil for a thread of this nature. There have only been 3 or 4 insults thrown around, which is pretty good if you remember some of the "gems" from the olden days :rofl:

Most transgressions have either been expounded upon or apologized for, which shows that we are staying relatively civil. Also things always seem angrier or less civil when on the intrawebz because we cannot read tone or body language, so it is really not that bad when that is taken into account. I cannot speak for all, but I have not taken anything to be personal and have not intended to make anything personal. I hope the same is true across the board. :cheers:

[Coralis]

The thing of it is, Coralis I think you're right, gun ownership comes with responsibilities and consequences if you fall short of those responsibilities. The problem here is that when these things happen gun control advocates are given an inch and take a mile.



Exactly ! these type of stories are just fuel to the gun control fire.

That's the thing all you ever hear is " we have the right to this etc etc etc. when you do you ever hear anyone talking about the responsibility that goes with it.

[grEnAlEins]

ok I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree apparently you have different ideas about parenting and responsibility than I do.
Not as much as you might think. To clarify, I think that you are partially right and there is an obligation of responsibility. I object to mandating the responsibility by way of government. Responsibility should come from within an individual.

[Hilltop Customs]

grEnAlEins, I agree that responsibility should come from within an individual, but I dont think anyone wants to suffer the repercussions of someone elses lack of responsibility.(even though the %'s are so low of it occurring, people are still scared)

[grEnAlEins]

That's the thing all you ever hear is " we have the right to this etc etc etc. when you do you ever hear anyone talking about the responsibility that goes with it.
As implied above, I see this a debate over what the source of that responsibility should be. I say an individual should do it intrinsically, and you seem to think that there needs to be a set of regulations, but have not given an objective standard for such. I agree to disagree with you here, and I do see what you are getting at. Believe it or not I agree with you other than on the part about allowing government to define and dictate responsibility.

The reason that most gun owners only speak about rights is because most of us (the vast majority of 100+ million of us the US) are perfectly responsible and see responsibility as a DUH thing. You do not hear about responsible gun ownership and storage because it is not exciting, bloody, or sexy enough to make it into the media. I personally see a knee jerk reaction to regulate all based on a statistically insignificant occurrence to be concerning, but that is just my take on things.

EDIT: Hilltop, stop beating me to posting!! :mad: :p

The fact that people get scared about this a whole other issue. Remind me, are you from my neck of the woods (NE-IL, SE-WI)? I wanna say that you are, but cannot remember... anyways, I have a book you might enjoy reading on the subject, so if you are gonna go to our winter break PB thing that we are planning let me know and I can hopefully remember to bring it for you.

EDIT part duex: I was wrong. You are from well outside of my neck of the woods :rolleyes: disregard :)

[Hilltop Customs]

PA, whats the book...might be able to find an e-copy :ninja:

[grEnAlEins]

PA, whats the book...might be able to find an e-copy :ninja:
Sneaky haxor devil ;)

In The Criminal Justice System: Politics and Policies (Cole, Gertz, and Bunger) and Thinking About Crime: Sense and Sensibility in American Penal Culture (Tonry) there several sections related to politics, policies, moral panics/mass fear, and discretion. Most of the books are related but there are specific sections that are especially relevant. I also have some PDF files of journal articles that tie in if you are interested. Just a warning for you, what is learned cannot be unlearned and you may develop an extremely unfavorable outlook with regard to your fellow man and the political environment surrounding issues of fear and panic, media portrayal, and the integration of theories of discretion across our system :D It is a depressing read, but is informative.

Basically these books are about justice policy and the formation thereof. The idea of irrational fears of a statistically insignificant occurrence is a dominant theme and how easily it is to incite fear and panic among people and the implications on policies. It is half a CJ thing and half a Poli-Sci thing, so it is not all that exciting to read :( Most of the directly related portions are related to serial killers, serial rapists, kidnappers, sex offenders, and the "generation of super-criminals" (us), the war on drugs, and some other issues and the relationship they have to fear, panic, media coverage, more fear and panic, and finally policy.

Also, come to think of it, if you have not read Mien Kampf, do it. There are several passages about how the lack of rationality and tendency to allow fear or panic to overwhelm reason is omnipresent in society and is highly exploitable.

[Hilltop Customs]

I'll do a little searching for them.....from your description it sounds almost like something I'd write lol.

[PyRo]

I made no leap if the gun was able to be accessed by the 8 year old kid , it was not properly secured period to assume otherwise is naive at best and foolish at worst.
To base your beliefs on assumptions truly is foolish.

[Coralis]

Sigh.... yeah ok whatever your right you should leave your firearms out where ever you feel like and then complain about the government taking away your rights when your kids harms himself or others

[Hilltop Customs]

I think what people are saying is an 8 year old will find a key and unlock a gun cabinet with no trouble. It makes NO difference if there is a law saying that guns have to be under lock and key, what matters is teaching the kids responsibility around guns.

The only way to teach them is to take them to a range and let them fire a gun. I believe any kid growing up in a home with a gun should have this experience at a very young age, as it will make them much safer than a lock, because a lock only needs a key to be completely useless.

Whether or not the gun was locked up or not doesnt matter, the kid still took it and did what he did.....if he was taught about guns, he might not have.

If you want to take it even further, who taught the kid the idea of doing something like that with a gun?

[grEnAlEins]

what matters is teaching the kids responsibility around guns.
Ding ding ding. Winner!!

I would go further and say at that a responsible adult must teach the responsibility and respect for firearms, but that might be asking too much and would require a great many responsible adults :p

I would tend to argue that proper education and instruction are part of the responsibility. It is too bad the CMP is for all intents and purposes dead, because that was a great start.

EDIT: also, it is dang near impossible to narrow down to one "teacher"... There are so many possible factors, especially since we have no information as to the details of his background or life.

[DanMan]

I think the argument Obama gives is that the 2nd amendment only protects hunting and sportsmen and that "assault weapons" aka scary black rifles and such are meant to belong in the battle field only.

Which is an outright lie.

the whole idea of the 2nd amendment was so the citizen could fight aganst the govt if it came to that. Therefore everything the army has should be fair game for us.

[BigEvil]

I joined ar15.com over the weekend. Once i can find out what kind of socialist regulations I need to adhere to in NYC.. I will be owning one of those there black rifles. :)

[maxama10]

I wholeheartedly agree!

and great!

[Coralis]

the whole idea of the 2nd amendment was so the citizen could fight aganst the govt if it came to that. Therefore everything the army has should be fair game for us.


So you wouldnt mind living next to me if I could lay hands on a nuclear warhead ??

[Hilltop Customs]

:rolleyes:

I knew it was coming.

A single person is not responsible enough to handle such a destructive device. That also goes for much less powerful explosives also.

Where does the line get drawn...different sides have different views.

[grEnAlEins]

I joined ar15.com over the weekend.
I joined today!! :headbang:

[grEnAlEins]

So you wouldnt mind living next to me if I could lay hands on a nuclear warhead ??
Holy quantum leap Batman!! :eek:

This example of material fallacy is brought you buy...
http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/501/dvdrewinderui9.jpg
Because some things just do not make sense.

[Coralis]

what?? you have your weapon to protect your home and I have mine ..... nuclear deterrence has kept this country safe now for 60 odd years. a small nuke is no more dangerous in a small area than is any automatic weapon in the same area with the same amount of people occupying it. (actually im not being serious but does make a point not all gun(arms) control laws are evil).

[grEnAlEins]

what you have your weapon to protect your home and I have mine .....a small nuke is no more dangerous in a small area than is any automatic weapon in the same area with the same amount of people occupying it
Yes it is.

Obviously I am not going to see a sound logical argument (i.e. no fallacy at the root) out of you...

[grEnAlEins]

(actually im not being serious but does make a point not all gun(arms) control laws are evil).
Your argument nuke argument (despite being semi-facetious) is equivalent to the following:

Birds can fly.
Penguins are birds.
Therefore, penguins can fly.

It completely flawed. Here is your example:

I can bear arms.
A nuke is an arm.
Therefore, I can bear nukes.

You have removed/destroyed the exception. Google this: a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid. You cannot do that in a logical argument. you have not made a logical argument and have not proved a point. Nothing can be proven by way of fallacy. Sorry for the bad news chief.

[Coralis]

try this on for logic then mr fallacy ... a handgun can be fired and reloaded enough times to kill every man woman and child on earth and i suppose its theoretically possible to build a bomb big enough to blow up the earth .. which is more lethal?

[grEnAlEins]

try this on for logic then mr fallacy ... a handgun can be fired and reloaded enough times to kill every man woman and child on earth and i suppose its theoretically possible to build a bomb big enough to blow up the earth .. which is more lethal?
:rofl: Don't get frustrated with me because I pointed out the flaw in your argument.

By that logic, knifes, keys, and number two pencils would also be seen as equally lethal. This is outright foolish.

/also, you did it yet again ;)
//This is obviously not getting anyone anywhere, accept that Tylenol will make money off the headache I am getting :p
///enjoy the rest of your night :cheers:

[Coralis]

Bullcrap i was responding to this
Therefore everything the army has should be fair game for us. and since this seems to be the opinion of most 2nd amend fans then I want nuclear weapons .... though i would settle for m1 abrams




What point is that? Do you really think you made a valid point based on fallacious logic? Bad news for you chief, it cannot be done. Your argument nuke argument (despite being semi-facetious) is equivalent to the following: Birds can fly. Penguins are birds. Therefore, penguins can fly. It completely flawed. Here is your example: I can bear arms. A nuke is an arm. Therefore, I can bear nukes. No. You have removed/destroyed the exception. Google this: a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid.

btw the comparison would be I have the right to bears and there are alot of people who want NO limits to or responsibility to that right . therfore I want nukes

[grEnAlEins]

Bullcrap i was responding to this and since this seems to be the opinion of most 2nd amend fans then I want nuclear weapons .... though i would settle for m1 abrams





btw the comparison would be I have the right to bears and there are alot of people who want NO limits to or responsibility to that right . therfore I want nukes
1) I know what you were responding to. It does not make your argument more logical though.

2) That is still a fallacy, whether or not others do it too is not relevant. It is a flawed argument, end of story.

As I edited in above, this is not getting anywhere, I am getting a headache, and I hope you have a nice night :cheers:

[michbich]

:rofl: Don't get frustrated with me because I pointed out the flaw in your argument.

By that logic, knifes, keys, and number two pencils would also be seen as equally lethal. This is outright foolish.

/also, you did it yet again ;)
//This is obviously not getting anyone anywhere, accept that Tylenol will make money off the headache I am getting :p
Coralis simply replied to a comment about wether or not citizens should have the right to have the same weapons as the army.

There is a line to be drawn somewhere.

[grEnAlEins]

Coralis simply replied to a comment about wether or not citizens should have the right to have the same weapons as the army.

There is a line to be drawn somewhere.
I know that. It does not bring logic to his statement though. The exception was still removed, was it not? It is not relevant that others do it too.

I agree completely. It is just important to explain it in a way that maintains strong logic.

[michbich]

I know that. It does not bring logic to his statement though. The exception was still removed, was it not? It is not relevant that others do it too.

I agree completely. It is just important to explain it in a way that maintains strong logic.
Ok, something more realistic. What about hand grenades or other types of explosives? Should your drunken appartement neihbours have some?

[SCpoloRicker]

I joined ar15.com over the weekend. Once i can find out what kind of socialist regulations I need to adhere to in NYC.. I will be owning one of those there black rifles. :)

Dude, there are no scary weapons allowed in NYC. Particularly long scary weapons.

[grEnAlEins]

Ok, something more realistic. What about hand grenades or other types of explosives? Should your drunken appartement neihbours have some?
Question 1: That is the same logical fallacy. You have no changed the illogical premise.

Question 2: That is also a fallacy. It is the reverse of the one you and Coralis used before. This is the structure of your argument:

So because this particular Corvette driver speeds, all Corvette drivers must speed?

grEn's idiotic neighbors at school should be precluded from grenade ownership, therefore all people should be precluded from grenade ownership?

Google: a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter

Just because one individual should be precluded from something, it does not mean that all should be precluded from something.

-----
Back to what this whole exchange started over...

The point that you seem to miss is that laws only restrict those who choose to obey them. Believe it or not, there are people who intentionally break the law without a second thought. Restricting a law abiding citizen has no effect on a criminal. Criminals here acquire brand spankin' new automatic weapons despite it being illegal here. The regulations of today only stop a law abiding citizen from getting one. I fail to see how that helps anything at all.

Something you should remember: Prohibition is not an effective means of crime control or promotion of public safety. It has certainly never stood to curb use/ownership/possession in the past or present. The only statistically significant method of crime control or promotion of public safety related to gun control is the NICS (making sure that a party is not a criminal).

Here is an interesting fact to consider before you make the "yeah, but a criminal can steal them from a law abiding citizen" argument... Are you aware of how Dillinger got his BAR or Thompsons? They were stolen from the police and National Guard, not from private citizens who legally owned them.

So a ban on private ownership by law abiding citizens does not seem to work at present, does not seem to be likely to have worked in the past, yet you seem to think a ban is a good idea anyway?:confused: I am curious as to why. Please enlighten me with a sound logical argument.

That said, I see no practical purpose to own grenade, but if a law abiding citizen wants one, who am I to say no? The same goes for an automatic firearm. I do not need one at present and would not get one at present, but I have no right to tell someone else that they cannot solely on that basis.

[maxama10]

I think we're all on the same side here guys, right?


:)

[michbich]

I don't think a ban is a good idea, don't take me wrong. I am in favor of gun ownership. I do have riffles and shotguns back home and if a ban were to happen and we had to destroy all firearms, i would not hand them over. I just like to analyze and question both sides of the medal and i am open to other peoples arguements. I know where i stand, but it's never a bad thing to get the input of others even if i don't always agree.

I do beleive there should be a limit set somewhere. For example, I don't see a use for claymore mines, hand grenades and mustard gas for home defence. Sure we can say "i should have the freedom, the right to have those items in my home, no one can tell me what to do in MY home", but there is also a responsability for the operator's safety, more importantly, the safety of the bystanders. I actualy don't care what happens to the owner if he was reckless, i do care for the innocent bystander though. Like i don't care for the guy that made a hole with his gun, but i do care about the woman. I know it's not a nice thing to say, and you can tell me that that's "rediculous", but that's how i honnestly feel.

I know that explosives and poison gas are not the best examples, but without limits or laws, legally, they should be allowed. It would still not feel right in my book. Personaly, i wouldn't have a 8year old in the same house as a live grenade even if it's in a safe place and legal. "Legal" isn't a synonym for "safe". Like you mentiened earlier, kids can find anything in a house.

It's like in elementory school when one student is bad, everyone pays for it. The population is too big to start giving exceptions to certain people so general rules have to be set. I dislike that as much as you do, but that's how it's done. I do agree that criminals are not regulated by laws and can get their hands on explosives, automatics, you name it, they have it. For that reason, you should have the right to own the tools to protect yourself accordingly.

[maxama10]

I tend to agree for the most part.


However,
this thread is now about :
:headbang:

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/maxama10/122638058864.jpg
http://www.ammoday.com/

TL;DR everyone goes and buys 100 rounds of AMMO to make a statement

what do you think guys, will you participate?

[grEnAlEins]

I don't think a ban is a good idea, don't take me wrong. I am in favor of gun ownership. I do have riffles and shotguns back home and if a ban were to happen and we had to destroy all firearms, i would not hand them over. I just like to analyze and question both sides of the medal and i am open to other peoples arguements. I know where i stand, but it's never a bad thing to get the input of others even if i don't always agree.

I do beleive there should be a limit set somewhere. For example, I don't see a use for claymore mines, hand grenades and mustard gas for home defence. Sure we can say "i should have the freedom, the right to have those items in my home, no one can tell me what to do in MY home", but there is also a responsability for the operator's safety, more importantly, the safety of the bystanders. I actualy don't care what happens to the owner if he was reckless, i do care for the innocent bystander though. Like i don't care for the guy that made a hole with his gun, but i do care about the woman. I know it's not a nice thing to say, and you can tell me that that's "rediculous", but that's how i honnestly feel.

I know that explosives and poison gas are not the best examples, but without limits or laws, legally, they should be allowed. It would still not feel right in my book. Personaly, i wouldn't have a 8year old in the same house as a live grenade even if it's in a safe place and legal. "Legal" isn't a synonym for "safe". Like you mentiened earlier, kids can find anything in a house.

It's like in elementory school when one student is bad, everyone pays for it. The population is too big to start giving exceptions to certain people so general rules have to be set. I dislike that as much as you do, but that's how it's done. I do agree that criminals are not regulated by laws and can get their hands on explosives, automatics, you name it, they have it. For that reason, you should have the right to own the tools to protect yourself accordingly.
I agree with your lack of regard for the careless detailed above. :headbang: To be honest I did not see that one coming with your name above it ;) But I agree 100%.

As for drawing the line somewhere, you are dead on accurate, but doing so requires the utmost in thought and consideration for all possible circumstances. Most people do not do this ever, let alone with regard to emotion subjects such as this.

And in the spirit of what this thread is now about....
http://fanyard.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/jessica-simpson-on-gq-cover-in-american-flag-bikini-dbu-pants-and-soldier-dog-tags.jpg

[maxama10]

Tied into the theme of weapons is training and related to training is your new mandatory civil defense training that Rahm Emmanuel and Obama are now planning. Ages 18-25 would be required to do 3 months (I assume all in one period) of some sort of civil defense training.


so high school students 50 hours mandatory
then 18-25 year olds will have 3 months mandatory civil defense training
college students optional 100hours community service for $4000 break on tuition


I'm not necessarily opposed to the civil defense training because I do believe a number of people stand to benefit from it, myself included, but it is quite ehhh radical.


Change is coming folks.

discuss


Edit: for your viewing pleasure

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e4qG6UIr8z" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=e4qG6UIr8z" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

[grEnAlEins]

The idea of training is not a bad thing.

The idea of force training is a bad thing.

I would also like to point out that we cannot be just as effective if we are disarmed.

If Obama has done a 180* and would support the RTKaBA I would be happy. If he implemented a voluntary training program for civil defense I would support it. I would love to see him pull a JFK and give "a nation of Minutemen" speech and expand voluntary participation in and funding for the CMP, I would be ecstatic. This might be a very good thing, or it might be the worst possible thing. Time will tell.


Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.
Something else to consider:

I would never invade the United States. There would be a gun behind every blade of grass.

This could be a great thing to have a voluntary or even incentive based civil defense training. I have already done a great deal and hold several home and classroom based certification from FEMA.

that said if it is a forced situation and used inappropriately, this could be the worst situation in our history. Like I said above this could be either the best or the worst thing to happen to the United States in a long time.

[grEnAlEins]

http://www.bronzelady.com/BettyBoop/IMG_1992.jpg

[bryceeden]

Obama is an idiot 150%, all his talk of main street wealth and creating jobs then he decides that one of his first things hes going to do is make an executive order that will put millions out of work. I have no doubt that he would ban guns despite saying he wouldn't, however given the supreme court is still conservative and has already ruled that the DC hand gun ban and such are unconstitutional as well as the 2nd amendment being an individual right the question is at this point can he? Will enough of Congress back it?

[Spider-TW]

Have they mentioned his attorney general yet?

I still remember the Reno years. :cuss: :mad: :cuss:

[grEnAlEins]

Have they mentioned his attorney general yet?
He has not picked yet, and his choice would need to get approved.

also give this a read:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081114/pl_politico/15625 :(