Jump to content
csbrown28

Let's Have An Honest Discussion About Guns

Recommended Posts

Let's then go back to your argument on things "at that time" of the writing of the Constitution and look at another part of the constitution.

 

In the 3rd Amendment, no soldier could be quartered in any house.

 

So they were talking about these soldiers right?

 

image032.gif

 

and not these soldiers....

navy-seal-4.jpg

 

or this tank parked in your driveway....

m1a1-tank.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the part of the 2nd Amendment that refers to a Well Organized Militia mean that our military is doing it all wrong? Our forces should all look like this....and well organized?

 

militia.jpg

 

Instead of this...

royal-marines-afghanistan.jpg

 

I personally don't think our founders were that short-sighted. However, I could be biased. I love our Constitution.

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do you seriously think our founders meant the right to bear muskets? What else could they have meant ???

 

Do you think maybe they were so short sighted as to maybe think that free speech would only be spoken and written on pen and paper? So if the government banned speech on the internet, would we give up and say....yah...ok.....you are right.....they never mentioned computers.

Free speech is a concept and not a material thing like "arms" are. Free speech will always mean free speech , no matter what its medium, as it remains unchanged.

Arms can only mean the weapons that you know about and are constantly changing. Did they mean that you could keep and bear a grenade launcher ???

 

Forget the right to defend against tyranny for a second. Would you think the best way to defend a home or self is really through a musket? Take some time to watch the video below. The woman in the first 911 call was brutally murdered. The second 911 were made up of survivors. If you could hand the woman in the first video a weapon (a choice between a semi-auto gun and a musket) what would you give her?

Why the limit on semi-auto, offer her a Thompson instead of a musket then....

 

WARNING: Graphic Audio

 

 

So why draw the line at semi-auto, why not full auto, RPG, M2, Tomahawk, etc.............???

Why is the full auto illegal then ??? Did our founding fathers make them illegal ???

 

As far as the musket argument, that is what they knew, how could they legislate on what they didn't know ???

Will personal lasers be legal or illegal ??? Did the founding fathers foresee them also ???

 

 

BTW perhaps you could clear this up also ???

Why are well regulated militia and the right to bear arms in the same sentence in the 2nd amendment ???

Wouldn't "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

by itself, without the militia even being mentioned have achieved what constitutionalists claim ???

Surely, they being so all inclusive in your eyes, would have only said only what they intended and not clouded it with an unrelated clause....right ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

So why draw the line at semi-auto, why not full auto, RPG, M2, Tomahawk, etc.............???

 

As far as the musket argument, that is what they knew, how could they legislate on what they didn't know ???

Will personal lasers be legal or illegal ??? Did the founding fathers foresee them also ???

 

 

BTW perhaps you could clear this up also ???

Why are well regulated militia and the right to bear arms in the same sentence in the 2nd amendment ???

Wouldn't "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

by itself, without the militia even being mentioned have achieved what constitutionalists claim ???

Surely, they being so all inclusive in your eyes, would have only said only what they intended and not clouded it with an unrelated clause....right ???

 

Before I answer you, have you read through what the founders were discussing on page 1 of this thread before you tried your own analysis of the second amendment? Look at the historical context on all the discussions and writings from the founders regarding liberty and a republic by the "people".

 

If you haven't done that, you are making your own interpretation of the second amendment. Everyone will have their own opinion. Ask the SCOTUS what they think.

 

 

The question I'll ask to you if you think our founders didn't know how to write is....why wasn't it written this way.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, has the right to keep and bear Arms, and shall not be infringed.

 

 

Why do you think they tossed in "right of the people"? and took out "has" which would be essential to how you think it should have been written. Can you propose how else it should have been written (keeping as accurate to the original wording as possible).

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that "the right of the people" can also be found in the "Declaration of Independence".

 

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....

 

Now...do you think that MAYBE....they wanted "the people" armed or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Before I answer you, have you read through what the founders were discussing on page 1 of this thread before you tried your own analysis of the second amendment? Look at the historical context on all the discussions and writings from the founders regarding liberty and a republic by the "people".

 

If you haven't done that, you are making your own interpretation of the second amendment. Everyone will have their own opinion. Ask the SCOTUS what they think.

 

 

The question I'll ask to you if you think our founders didn't know how to write is....why wasn't it written this way.

 

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, has the right to keep and bear Arms, and shall not be infringed.

 

 

Why do you think they tossed in "right of the people"? and took out "has" which would be essential to how you think it should have been written. Can you propose how else it should have been written (keeping as accurate to the original wording as possible).

 

 

 

Most of their premise you posted was predicated on the prohibiting a "standing" army, we all know how that worked out....

We also must take into consideration the times and that the oppressing British standing army was repelled and that we were vulnerable.

So having a "well regulated" militia made up of citizens was more of necessity than a privilege.....

 

To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows.- GEORGE WASHINGTON

 

 

 

 

Soooo... answer my questions posed to you now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So why draw the line at semi-auto, why not full auto, RPG, M2, Tomahawk, etc.............???

Why is the full auto illegal then ??? Did our founding fathers make them illegal ???

 

Individual responsibility comes with the liberty he/she is granted. If you ask me, even if full auto was legal, I would have no desire to fire full auto. It was designed for suppresive fire and not accuracy. As a responsible gun owner the following rules are:

 

1. Always treat a gun like it is loaded.

2. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

4. Know your target and beyond.

 

Because #4 is an important rule, even if I could own a full auto, I would never use it in a defensive situation because you don't have control over your weapon. You may not hit your intended target and may hurt someone beyond.

 

RPG, M2, Tomahawk, are just silly extremes. How does one defend themselves without irresponsibly killing bystanders. Small arms are more pinpoint accurate. If you ask what then about tyranny, well I would say that there have been many revolutionaries that (using guerilla tactics) have fended off a more advanced military.

 

Back to handing the girl something to defend herself, I presented a musket vs. semi-auto rifle or handgun. Machine gun you say? Well...only if there is no one downrange (except for their attacker). Sure....why not. It is overkill (no pun intended), but it will save her life.

 

 

As far as the musket argument, that is what they knew, how could they legislate on what they didn't know ???

Will personal lasers be legal or illegal ??? Did the founding fathers foresee them also ???

 

If a personal laser allows one to defend themselves accurately, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of their premise you posted was predicated on the prohibiting a "standing" army, we all know how that worked out....

We also must take into consideration the times and that the oppressing British standing army was repelled and that we were vulnerable.

So having a "well regulated" militia made up of citizens was more of necessity than a privilege.....

 

To place any dependence upon militia is assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life, unaccustomed to the din of arms, totally unacquainted with every kind of makes them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows.- GEORGE WASHINGTON

 

It was doubt that he cast on the militia. Those were some of his initial observations about the militia (the British did not respect the militia and many times cast the same doubt). However, later on. Despite these misgivings by Continental Army commanders, militia, when used properly, repeatedly demonstrated their utility to the patriot cause. At Concord in 1775, militia, firing from the cover of the trees lining the road back to Boston, inflicted over 25% casualties on the retreating redcoats. In the desperate winter of 1776-1777, up to 12,000 militia soldiers from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware came to the relief of Washington’s Army, while other units remained in defensive postures in New York and Connecticut. Without the numbers contributed by local militia, the British would not have been forced to give back much of what they had earlier conquered in New Jersey. A few months later, in June of 1777, Washington was able to reinforce Northern New York while still holding the New Jersey Highlands due to the presence of local militia, demonstrating a flexibility of response that came from the dispersal of local militia units throughout the colonies.

 

Later on he would go on to make the following statement.

 

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Individual responsibility comes with the liberty he/she is granted. If you ask me, even if full auto was legal, I would have no desire to fire full auto. It was designed for suppresive fire and not accuracy. As a responsible gun owner the following rules are:

 

1. Always treat a gun like it is loaded.

2. Never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger until ready to fire.

4. Know your target and beyond.

 

 

Would it be unreasonable to ask that you add to following to your list?

 

#5 I accept that failure to take reasonable measures to secure firearms may result in owners being found negligent if that failure leads to the injury or death of another person or damage to another persons property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can see no one is going to take guns away, in fact I own a few myself...

What I do see as possible legislation, is stricter back round checks, closing the gun show loophole, mentally ill screenings, and mag limits....

Also possible is the permitting and logging of ammo sales

As a responsible gun owner I have no problem with any or all of these, especially if they save lives.

I think it could be a good first step in curbing mass gun murders, though not a complete solution it should at least stop some.....

There probably is no complete solution anyway and doing nothing, in my book, is irresponsible.....

 

And what is the problem with that ??? Let me hear some if you have a problem with any of the above......

 

IMO it doesn't take away the 2nd amendment (alleged) rights, however, it does put limits on them, but we already have many limits in place already

and in my mind these are not going to 'infringe' on the responsible gun owner. All freedoms have their limitations.......

 

 

BTW csbrown28 I like #5, but 'reasonable' need to be defined

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Would it be unreasonable to ask that you add to following to your list?

 

#5 I accept that failure to take reasonable measures to secure firearms may result in owners being found negligent if that failure leads to the injury or death of another person or damage to another persons property.

 

I think there are already laws in place for that (at least in Cali). Yes....if I am negligent and I do not secure my firearms....which leads to injury or death to another person. I am liable.

 

For example:

1) leaving a gun loaded for my young children to have access to

2) lending my gun to a prohibited person.

 

Now...it is different if with all my security measures, someone breaks into my house and still gets them. There was a story where a bunch of police cars were broken into and rifles taken. Are the police responsible for any deaths that come out of those stolen firearms? My place could be setup like Fort Knox....if my stuff gets stolen....you can't blame me for that.

 

A criminal is a criminal. I'm not going to be tied to that criminal because of hoplophobia.

 

As far as I can see no one is going to take guns away, in fact I own a few myself...

What I do see as possible legislation, is stricter back round checks, closing the gun show loophole, mentally ill screenings, and mag limits....

Also possible is the permitting and logging of ammo sales

As a responsible gun owner I have no problem with any or all of these, especially if they save lives.

I think it could be a good first step in curbing mass gun murders, though not a complete solution it should at least stop some.....

There probably is no complete solution anyway and doing nothing, in my book, is irresponsible.....

 

And what is the problem with that ??? Let me hear some if you have a problem with any of the above......

 

IMO it doesn't take away the 2nd amendment (alleged) rights, however, it does put limits on them, but we already have many limits in place already

and in my mind these are not going to 'infringe' on the responsible gun owner. All freedoms have their limitations.......

 

 

BTW csbrown28 I like #5, but 'reasonable' need to be defined

 

I agree with everything you have said except for logging and permitting of ammo sales and magazine capacity. These laws do nothing for a criminal. It only affects the law abiding. If you promise me that a criminal will actually think twice about committing a crime with a gun with a larger capacity or will be unable to get ammo with logging and permitting, then I'll bite.

 

My guess is that you can't though.

 

The problem I see with logging, permitting, and magazine restrictions is that it isn't put in place to prevent crime. It would be put in place because of fear/distrust of the law abiding citizen....which just may snap and one day go nutz with their many rounds and large capacity.

 

I don't support any legislation that takes away liberty for added security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think there are already laws in place for that (at least in Cali). Yes....if I am negligent and I do not secure my firearms....which leads to injury or death to another person. I am liable.

 

For example:

1) leaving a gun loaded for my young children to have access to

2) lending my gun to a prohibited person.

 

Now...it is different if with all my security measures, someone breaks into my house and still gets them. There was a story where a bunch of police cars were broken into and rifles taken. Are the police responsible for any deaths that come out of those stolen firearms? My place could be setup like Fort Knox....if my stuff gets stolen....you can't blame me for that.

 

A criminal is a criminal. I'm not going to be tied to that criminal because of hoplophobia.

 

That's where the "reasonable" part comes in, so we are untied in are agreement.

 

You can't prevent theft, but you should be responsible for taking measures against it. The only way you could be held negligent is if could be demonstrated that you failed to secure your arms. Now what "secure" means is another conversation, but generally speaking your firearms should take some level of force to obtain.

 

Does that mean a safe, or gun locks, or locked closet? I don't know, that's a conversation I'm willing to have.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think locked up is fine. No one should be forced to have a heavy duty biometric safe and a secret hidden room with lasers and motion sensors....like I do. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think locked up is fine. No one should be forced to have a heavy duty biometric safe and a secret hidden room with lasers and motion sensors....like I do. ;)

 

I'd agree....A trigger or mag well lock would suffice. Do you think these items should be sold with firearms by law? Maybe with a provision that you can return them to the manufacturer for credit of you have a safe or already have locks?

 

Do you think that addresses the issue of personal responsibility?

Edited by csbrown28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a complex issue with no clear fix. Statistically, Gun control laws have no demonstrable impact on crime. However, Places without gun control have similar issues.

That may be true but they certainly have an affect on crime committed with guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd agree....A trigger or mag well lock would suffice. Do you think these items should be sold with firearms by law? Maybe with a provision that you can return them to the manufacturer for credit of you have a safe or already have locks?

 

Do you think that addresses the issue of personal responsibility?

Ban all private gun sales, or require a background check for all gun sales period. That addresses the issue of personal responsibility. Every gun in criminal hands was originally sold legally, and half of all guns confiscated in Mexico can be traced to Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ban all private gun sales, or require a background check for all gun sales period. That addresses the issue of personal responsibility. Every gun in criminal hands was originally sold legally, and half of all guns confiscated in Mexico can be traced to Texas.

 

 

While banning sales that forgo a back ground check is a no brainier, this by itself will do little. I imagine that many of the gun sales made to criminals are done in the black market. Having said that. requiring owners to be personally accountable for their weapon effects everyone, regardless is the gun was purchased legally or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'd agree....A trigger or mag well lock would suffice. Do you think these items should be sold with firearms by law? Maybe with a provision that you can return them to the manufacturer for credit of you have a safe or already have locks?

 

Do you think that addresses the issue of personal responsibility?

 

No. How can you address the issue of responsibility? The only way to come close to completely addressing responsibility would be a very oppressive state of affairs. Government monitoring of households with guns. Put tracking devices on guns. Monthly mandatory meetings with psychologists to determine mental state, etc etc.

 

I wouldn't want to live in a country like that......not at all.

 

That may be true but they certainly have an affect on crime committed with guns.

 

It also has an affect on lives saved with a gun.

 

Ban all private gun sales, or require a background check for all gun sales period. That addresses the issue of personal responsibility. Every gun in criminal hands was originally sold legally, and half of all guns confiscated in Mexico can be traced to Texas.

 

You do know it is rather easy to MAKE an AR-15 rifle. A criminal will get a gun no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No. How can you address the issue of responsibility? The only way to come close to completely addressing responsibility would be a very oppressive state of affairs. Government monitoring of households with guns. Put tracking devices on guns. Monthly mandatory meetings with psychologists to determine mental state, etc etc.

 

I wouldn't want to live in a country like that......not at all.

 

What I meant was, would gun locks satisfy your concept of "securing" your rifle, at a minimum?

 

You do know it is rather easy to MAKE an AR-15 rifle. A criminal will get a gun no matter what.

 

Easy? Come on, let's be honest, for anyone that's not a gunsmith, making any precision firearm is virtually impossible. As far as smiths go, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate you calling what they do "easy", but having said that, I'll acknowledge that a ban will drive supply down relative to demand and if it becomes intense enough, their are smiths that will make them, regardless of bans, because of the huge profits involved.

 

Having said all of that, the fact that criminals will still get guns is no excuse not to take any action. Now I realize that's not what you said, but it sounds like what your implying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What I meant was, would gun locks satisfy your concept of "securing" your rifle, at a minimum?

 

Locking up....not necessarily gun locks. And only when unattended. It is pointless to have a gun in your home within reach if you can't get to it without unlocking it when you need it. I wouldn't advocate locking it up if it is supposed to be readied.

 

 

 

Easy? Come on, let's be honest, for anyone that's not a gunsmith, making any precision firearm is virtually impossible. As far as smiths go, I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate you calling what they do "easy", but having said that, I'll acknowledge that a ban will drive supply down relative to demand and if it becomes intense enough, their are smiths that will make them, regardless of bans, because of the huge profits involved.

 

Having said all of that, the fact that criminals will still get guns is no excuse not to take any action. Now I realize that's not what you said, but it sounds like what your implying.

 

I've built one before. Someone with decent machining skills could make one from a solid piece of aluminum. I won't even go down the path of 3D printers. Point is....we should try our best to get guns away from criminals and our best to ensure that if someone wants it to defend themselves...we shouldn't restrict THAT liberty.

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Locking up....not necessarily gun locks. And only when unattended. It is pointless to have a gun in your home within reach if you can't get to it without unlocking it when you need it. I wouldn't advocate locking it up if it is supposed to be readied.

 

So if you choose not to lock up your gun and it's taken from you by a family member and they hurt someone, are your negligent?

 

 

 

I've built one before. Someone with decent machining skills could make one from a solid piece of aluminum. I won't even go down the path of 3D printers. Point is....we should try our best to get guns away from criminals and our best to ensure that if someone wants it to defend themselves...we shouldn't restrict THAT liberty.

 

Only the body is made of aluminum, what about the barrel? Where do you 41V50 Vanadium steel or the equipment to machine it. Again to your original point, making an AR isn't easy. I'll concede that it's not impossible, but neither is making dynamite. Hell making dynamite is a WHOLE lot easier, but I don't think you could call it "easy".

Edited by csbrown28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if you choose not to lock up your gun and it's taken from you by a family member and they hurt someone, are your negligent?

 

To clarify, when I say not locking it up....that means that if I'm working late and in my office....and have it in my desk within reach. If I leave my desk, it comes with me. When I'm away....I lock it up. It is never left unattended. I don't think we are advocating keeping it locked up until you need to really use it, right!?! I can already imagine fumbling through a lock/safe while someone is coming through your door.

 

However, to answer your question...if I was a numbnut....walked away from my gun...left it unattended and my kid shot him/herself with it.....I would be negligent....and forget laws....the next bullet in the chamber would then be for me if my negligence cause my children's death.....gives me shivers just thinking about it. If you aren't a responsible person, I strongly don't suggest getting a gun. In fact, you are better off with a dog or something. Well....even then....there are issues with irresponsible dog owners and children.....

 

Irresponsibility....that's the problem. :angry:

 

 

Only the body is made of aluminum, what about the barrel? Where do you 41V50 Vanadium steel or the equipment to machine it. Again to your original point, making an AR isn't easy. I'll concede that it's not impossible, but neither is making dynamite. Hell making dynamite is a WHOLE lot easier, but I don't think you could call it "easy".

 

Yeah...it's relatively easy. I've been doing it for a while. You are correct about the upper receiver and stuff. Those are a bit harder to make on your own. A skilled machinist/gunsmith probably. An ordinary person like me, not so much. However, you then start getting into what constitute a firearm. Do parts constitue a firearm. If I purchase a barrel, is that considered a weapon. What about a bolt? Parts themselves aren't dangerous. The assembly of those parts are.

 

So.....I'll admit. My calling it easy....was relative.

Edited by MrUSPatriot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To clarify, when I say not locking it up....that means that if I'm working late and in my office....and have it in my desk within reach. If I leave my desk, it comes with me. When I'm away....I lock it up. It is never left unattended. I don't think we are advocating keeping it locked up until you need to really use it, right!?! I can already imagine fumbling through a lock/safe while someone is coming through your door.

 

However, to answer your question...if I was a numbnut....walked away from my gun...left it unattended and my kid shot him/herself with it.....I would be negligent....and forget laws....the next bullet in the chamber would then be for me if my negligence cause my children's death.....gives me shivers just thinking about it. If you aren't a responsible person, I strongly don't suggest getting a gun. In fact, you are better off with a dog or something. Well....even then....there are issues with irresponsible dog owners and children.....

 

Irresponsibility....that's the problem. :angry:

 

Ok so we're on the same page here....

 

 

 

 

Yeah...it's relatively easy. I've been doing it for a while. You are correct about the upper receiver and stuff. Those are a bit harder to make on your own. A skilled machinist/gunsmith probably. An ordinary person like me, not so much. However, you then start getting into what constitute a firearm. Do parts constitue a firearm. If I purchase a barrel, is that considered a weapon. What about a bolt? Parts themselves aren't dangerous. The assembly of those parts are.

 

So.....I'll admit. My calling it easy....was relative.

 

A firearm is all the bits together that when a live round is added is now a deadly weapon. The bit's themselves are worthless for hurling 55gr or so of lead 500yds with enough accuracy to hit a man sized target.

 

So I'll try again. Making a fully functional firearm isn't easy. The lower is probably the easiest major component on an AR to make, and if that's what you were referring to then I'll agree, relatively speaking, but making all the bits and assembling them into a fully functional firearm isn't easy.

 

Agreed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So I'll try again. Making a fully functional firearm isn't easy. The lower is probably the easiest major component on an AR to make, and if that's what you were referring to then I'll agree, relatively speaking, but making all the bits and assembling them into a fully functional firearm isn't easy.

 

Agreed?

 

For those without experience....

 

I agree wholeheartedly! We are on the same page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...