More evidence why gun ownership should always be legal

[ib1yysguy]

did those reasonable regulations save 31 people at virginia tech? NIU?

You cant count lives that haven't been taken. I'm quite sure that the fact that fully automatic weapons are illegal and very hard to come by and that the punishment for being caught with one are very stiff has saved many, many more lives than the 31 lost at VTech (which, by the way, there is no evidence to suggest that the massive proliferation of weapons on campuses would do anything but lead to more violence).

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

No, it doesn't at all. It's completely retarded to say that because some people want to go have fun with fully automatic weapons that it would be wise to make them widely available. People can go have fun in other ways that aren't going to make fully automatic weapons more readily available to people who will misuse them.

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; what would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevento encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree."

--Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishments 87-88 (H. Paulucci transl. 1963).-- (Thomas Jefferson copied this passage in full in his Commonplace Book 314 (G. Chinard ed. 1926), which was "the source book and repertory of Jefferson's ideas on government." Id. at 4.)

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Uh, yeah you are. Supporting the idea that we should deregulate firearms and being a member of the NRA is very much actively working to impose your will and thoughts and ideology on the rest of us. Don't pretend that your stance is nonideological.

is supporting and adhering to the constitution wrong?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Uh, yeah you are. Supporting the idea that we should deregulate firearms and being a member of the NRA is very much actively working to impose your will and thoughts and ideology on the rest of us. Don't pretend that your stance is nonideological.

Not at all, it's entirely ideological. But I impose nothing on you. Don't own guns if you don't want to (I know you do, I'm speaking at large). Don't associate with those who do. If you own a business, feel free to have whatever corporate policy regarding firearms that you would like. And allow me the freedom to do the same. Live and let live.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You cant count lives that haven't been taken. I'm quite sure that the fact that fully automatic weapons are illegal and very hard to come by and that the punishment for being caught with one are very stiff has saved many, many more lives than the 31 lost at VTech (which, by the way, there is no evidence to suggest that the massive proliferation of weapons on campuses would do anything but lead to more violence).

since 1934, when automatic weapons were finally 'regulated', there have been two instances of crime related fatalities with 'legally' registered automatic weapons........by police officers. This is 2 instances out of the nearly 300,000 registered automatic weapons owned by the rest of American citizens.

so how are your regulations now?

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

since 1934, when automatic weapons were finally 'regulated', there have been two instances of crime related fatalities with 'legally' registered automatic weapons........by police officers. This is 2 instances out of the nearly 300,000 registered automatic weapons owned by the rest of American citizens.

so how are your regulations now?

Before I begin, you know we're on the same side. But this is too easy. By pointing towards the lack of crime, it is reasonable to conclude that those regulations have indeed worked, regardless of cost to personal freedom. A more accurate statistic would be to point to data regarding the use of automatic weapons in ALL crime (even with illegal ones it only equals about 1.2%) before and after the NFA 1934.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

TE=SmarterThanYou;565431]are autos chattel or are they property? because you're using the term property in 'personal property'.

they are personal property.....different from your right of "real" property you were talking about

yeah, anyone, because (trust me on this) having had some flight time and experience myself, if you don't know what you're doing, all you're going to do is create a big fireball at the end of the runway. no more worrying about THAT person being in the air.

nice try.....but if some get airborne and kill.....as a result of not having had training....need i say more?

this is a common fallacy argument pointed at Libertarians. The idea that we are 'no government' ideologues and this just isn't true. I'd appreciate keeping the strawman out of the debate.

you failed to answer a simple question.....i never claimed you are 'no government'.....that is YOUR strawman, not my question which you are apparently to afraid to answer.

without any government, what point do you think we would be at?

with the exception of the nuclear missile, yes. the missile is useless for defending against your oppressive government, therefore it has no protection under the 2nd Amendment.

unbelievable...you have exceptions.....requirements for people to "operate" certain "rights".....

in YOUR opinion, it is useless....yet in other opinions, it is useful....you have drawn the line.....so using your own argument.....you have become the government you don't want....

 

[belme1201]

Yes we do, but do we raise the prices of those licenses to unreasonable levels to keep people from driving........Mmmmmm....do we...do we...do we? That is what happens with gun licensing in liberal areas. And don't even get me started on the outrageous ammo tax many have proposed.

I have been a gun owner for years since I left the service. I was once a member of the NRA until I quit them at the same time as GHW Bush because of their stand on teflon coated bullets. I simply do not buy their industry prompted scare tactics as do you. I sleep well knowing if I want to buy a gun I can because I am qualified and I resent opposition to laws that will prevent arms from reaching unqualified individuals and ghost distrubitors. A gun should be traceable from the time it leaves the manufacturer.
There should be no reason for the US to be the source of worldwide illegal arms sales, but the fact is, as long as it is profitable, it will continue and US arms manufacturers will be happy to turn that profit, no matter how many die.

 

[belme1201]

ok, Chicago... total disaster. 80% of homicides committed by guns even with a gun ban. What else do you need or would you somehow find a flaw in that?

Is it now illegal to cross state lines or go downstate?

 

[belme1201]

unconstitutionally.

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929

I'll have to remember that the next time I go to renew my license, driver's and automobile.

 

[belme1201]

Is this thread about gun registration or about keeping gun ownership LEGAL???

I don't know, how do you separate them.

 

[SouthernBelle82]

And if the gun fraidy cats had there way this woman would have just been another victim. Call the police, wait, and hope that your assailant, who was so crazed that after she told him she was armed and had called the police still broke in, doesn't come in and rape or kill you.

Actually as a c.j. student I'm now taking a violent offenders class (sociology) and we're studying all the violent crimes mostly homicide offenses. According to c.j. historians crime would still happen with or without guns but without guns people would survive more.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You cant count lives that haven't been taken. I'm quite sure that the fact that fully automatic weapons are illegal and very hard to come by and that the punishment for being caught with one are very stiff has saved many, many more lives than the 31 lost at VTech (which, by the way, there is no evidence to suggest that the massive proliferation of weapons on campuses would do anything but lead to more violence).

You are quite wrong and it is possible for a civilian to own an automatic weapon.

 

[Taichiliberal]

http://www.kfor.com/news/local/kfor-news-woman-shoots-intruder-story,0,2782969.story

CHANDLER, OK -- For a Lincoln County woman it was a life or death situation after a random stranger tried to break into her rural home late Thursday night. "She confronted the man from inside the house immediately called 911, told him that she was armed and that she had called the police and he needed to leave," said Sheriff Chuck Mangion.

The alleged suspect, Billy D. Riley, has an extensive criminal history involving drugs and alcohol and according to investigators, Riley was near the victim's home after he wrecked his truck out front.

"Once he smashed the glass out he stepped into the residence and she used the shotgun to fire one shot which hit the intruder center of the chest and (he) fell back out of the house," said Mangion.

Hours after the incident investigators are still trying to figure out why he tried to break in; this crime is still under investigation.

It has to be investigated as a homicide and all the facts of the investigation will be gathered and forwarded to the district attorney's'office.

According to investigators, Riley's sister was also in the truck with him during the accident, but she was not involved in the attempted break in.

What's the point of this standard crime report? Nowhere in the article does it say that the weapon used was unregistered, and the incident is still under investigation. From the details available, it sounds like a home invasion by some dope who didn't take the hint.

Is there some intense lobbying action by some fringe group in the Oklahoma gov't to ban all weapons from civilians? Does Chandler have (or did it ever have) gun ownership laws like Washington, DC did for 30 years? If not, then this story is (unfortunately) standard stuff and the the subject title of this thread is a moot point at best, misleading at worst.

 

[Topspin]

Let me just say as the board's most anti-gun poster, that dems have approached this like the giant pussy's that they are. 18,000 murders is far too many for me, but the Harry Ried tools of the world and the wuss dems like him want to restrict law abiding citizens like you gun owners. I don't know the answer, but IMO the criminal who commits crimes with a gun needs to get bitchslapped 100x greater than today. Stop jailing peacefull pot smokers and use that room for armed fellons. When after maybe a decade you have FORCEFULLY scared the shit out of the criminal element then begin a debate.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Let me just say as the board's most anti-gun poster, that dems have approached this like the giant pussy's that they are. 18,000 murders is far too many for me, but the Harry Ried tools of the world and the wuss dems like him want to restrict law abiding citizens like you gun owners. I don't know the answer, but IMO the criminal who commits crimes with a gun needs to get bitchslapped 100x greater than today. Stop jailing peacefull pot smokers and use that room for armed fellons. When after maybe a decade you have FORCEFULLY scared the shit out of the criminal element then begin a debate.

You are coming around. You know it is the war on drugs, and subsequent drug empires that cause over 60% of our crime right? Dealers killing competitors and such?

 

[Topspin]

You are coming around. You know it is the war on drugs, and subsequent drug empires that cause over 60% of our crime right? Dealers killing competitors and such?

that's always been my position, gun nuts cant stop to listen. It will never get done of course. But again, force democrats to get out of their skin and stop being pussies on crimes committed with guns. I mean lay the fucking hammer down. I say I'm the most anti gun poster, I'm also the most pro hard time for violent criminals. Way more so than any republicans.

 

[christiefan915]

Actually as a c.j. student I'm now taking a violent offenders class (sociology) and we're studying all the violent crimes mostly homicide offenses. According to c.j. historians crime would still happen with or without guns but without guns people would survive more.

We just had another fully-armed policeman killed in the line of duty by a criminal with an assault rifle. It's the fourth policeman murdered this year. That, and similar incidents, tell me there are other considerations to study regarding crime prevention besides arming everyone to the teeth.

 

[Damocles]

It's a childish fantasy.

It is no fantasy to people who have served and been in a war zone. You cripple your own mind with your foolish talking point stereotypes you fill yourself with. Nobody who has wishes for it, but almost every person that I know who has realizes the possibility of such a necessity.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

We just had another fully-armed policeman killed in the line of duty by a criminal with an assault rifle. It's the fourth policeman murdered this year. That, and similar incidents, tell me there are other considerations to study regarding crime prevention besides arming everyone to the teeth.

what would those be? because several locales have tried banning guns......which hasn't worked, it's only made decent people defenseless.