RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:34:03 AM

Posts: 99
Joined: 12/7/2006
Status: offline

Ok, as far as lack of guns making things safer, that hasn't proved out. in DC, the murder rate kept going up after they banned the guns. Crime rates in Australia and Great Britan jumped once the guns were banned there. Both of those are basicly islands(yes i know Australia is technicly a continant) so that throws out the who argument we always hear that some other city or state needs tougher laws to prevent the local violance. And there was the lawmaker from Scotland who wanted to restrict knife ownership because of the rising number of incidents with knives. So much for the guns being the problem. The problem is people who want to kill someone will find a way. i just want to be able to protect myself from those that wish me or mine harm, be it the crook down the street or the crook in Washington,DC.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:39:25 AM

Posts: 5732
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
The 2nd Amendment is so imprecise and open to intepretation, it seems rather pointless to refer back to it because any intepretation will be more to do with contemporary politics than anything the authors of the amendment meant and who knows what they really meant anyway. It certainly isn't clear by reading the 2nd 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."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Don't restrict gun ownership, period.

_____________________________

(in reply to meatcleaver)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:41:47 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

Rabid people want to kill, so we enable them to have guns to kill us, so that we need guns to kill them.

It doesn't make much sense to me, but shoot away to your heart's content... just not in my family's direction, thank you.

_____________________________

(in reply to greyarcher315)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:43:32 AM

Posts: 5149
Joined: 12/11/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Rabid people want to kill, so we enable them to have guns to kill us, so that we need guns to kill them.

It doesn't make much sense to me, but shoot away to your heart's content... just not in my family's direction, thank you.

Guns make killing easier-but you can die from a hand over your mouth and nose for five minutes-shall we outlaw hands?

_____________________________

My shop is currently segueing into production mode.

I'm not taking custom orders.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:45:25 AM

Posts: 4121
Joined: 5/31/2006
Status: offline

I wonder since cars kill and injure more people than guns should be ban them too? What say ou Kittinsol?

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:48:21 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Rabid people want to kill, so we enable them to have guns to kill us, so that we need guns to kill them.

It doesn't make much sense to me, but shoot away to your heart's content... just not in my family's direction, thank you.

Guns make killing easier-but you can die from a hand over your mouth and nose for five minutes-shall we outlaw hands?

Did you hear what I said? It's not my job to instigate gun control: I'm just giving my opinion. I don't see why you want to provide criminals with yet more weapons to commit their crimes. But it's your choice.

I'd rather live in a place where guns were seen for what they should be, a last resort solution, and not as an innate right. I don't think it's an unreasonable proposition, but the resulting frothing shows me that it's not one many people would like to consider.

I repeat: I don't want to have your toys taken away. I just don't want your toys to hurt my family, or me. Alas, it's not something I'll be able to avoid if I'm in the line of fire. I'll just keep away from weapon-lovers, and hope for the best :-) .

_____________________________

(in reply to Leatherist)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:49:05 AM

Posts: 734
Joined: 12/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

For each responsible gun owner, how many irresponsible ones? Too many, by the looks of things... if you're ready to take that risk, fine... but then, this society has to be ready for the everyday tragedies, as well as the more media-friendly ones (remember Colombine? That was a bad one, no? The parents of the two boys who committed that atrocity were "responsible gun owners".)

I'm not sure I would call someone who keeps a gun in a pretty gun cabinet a "responsible gun owner" The gun cabinets had glass doors, easy to break and the keys were left in a accessable place. I've always kept my guns in an all metal gun cabinet and the keys locked away in a filing cabinet.

Because, even at the risk of losing my own life I do not think I could take another life. A gun would not be my weapon of choice to defend myself.

_____________________________

I must first learn to master myself, before I can truly be owned by one.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:49:18 AM

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

And the off base part was simple you stated how many bad owners per responsible owner, when the facts show it is 1263 responsible owners for every bad owner at worst.

Failuer to see how the bias and emotional non fact based order of the words you chose speaks volumes.

Additionally you will find studies have concluded that in the US there are about 2.5 million crimes prevented by privately owned guns. ( 15 studies range from 800,000 to 3 million)

So the figures are a problem how big the problem is can only be figured when you seperate out the deaths and injuries by catagories. The death of a convicted drug and violent crime offender breaking into an old man's house by gunshot at the hands of the senior citizen homeowner, weighs differently than the death of a homeowner by a home invader. (app 3000 justifiable homocides a year not including police) Both are recorded as a homocide in the 30,000 figure, even though one is a "justifiable homocide" and the other a "non justifiable homocide".

So lets see so far we have 30K - 3K (justifiable homocides) -15K suicides- 900 (killed by civil authorities in line of duty), the number of accidental deaths and non justifiable homocides is thus about 11 thousand a year.

suicides, it is generally held belief that when people get serious about suicide people (predominently men) use a firearm, being that they have really decided to kill themselves it is pretty basic to figure they would have found another means to accomoplish the act had the gun not been available. Better mental health practices would prevent far more suicides than removing all the guns from society.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:52:45 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LilMissHaven

I'm not sure I would call someone who keeps a gun in a pretty gun cabinet a "responsible gun owner" The gun cabinets had glass doors, easy to break and the keys were left in a accessable place.

Perhaps - how do you ensure people act responsibly then? Because they're not always as careful as you are. Maybe monthly visits to gun owners by a state appointed agency to check on the safe storing of guns in homes would work

.

_____________________________

(in reply to LilMissHaven)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:53:10 AM

Posts: 734
Joined: 12/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leatherist

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Rabid people want to kill, so we enable them to have guns to kill us, so that we need guns to kill them.

It doesn't make much sense to me, but shoot away to your heart's content... just not in my family's direction, thank you.

Guns make killing easier-but you can die from a hand over your mouth and nose for five minutes-shall we outlaw hands?

Did you hear what I said? It's not my job to instigate gun control: I'm just giving my opinion. I don't see why you want to provide criminals with yet more weapons to commit their crimes. But it's your choice.

I'd rather live in a place where guns were seen for what they should be, a last resort solution, and not as an innate right. I don't think it's an unreasonable proposition, but the resulting frothing shows me that it's not one many people would like to consider.

I repeat: I don't want to have your toys taken away. I just don't want your toys to hurt my family, or me. Alas, it's not something I'll be able to avoid if I'm in the line of fire. I'll just keep away from weapon-lovers, and hope for the best :-) .

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!

Not all gun owners see their gun as a line of defense. I grew up in Alaska, spent my adult years in Nebraska and South Dakota I see my guns as a source of nutrition. I rarely eat any meat other then venison which as far as I know (and I'm sure there is a market out there somewhere) you can't just buy at the grocery store.

I wonder if one's view of guns is determined by where they reside...There's very little crime where I live and have lived so I have honestly never viewed my gun as a source of protection.

Hmmm you've got me thinking now.

_____________________________

I must first learn to master myself, before I can truly be owned by one.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 7:57:38 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

And the off base part was simple you stated how many bad owners per responsible owner, when the facts show it is 1263 responsible owners for every bad owner at worst.

No I didn't; I simply quoted the latest available figures by the Centers for Disease Control (a telling title). I didn't bother dissecting them into categories, you did.

quote:

Failuer to see how the bias and emotional non fact based order of the words you chose speaks volumes.

I am not emotional; but you come across as if you are.

I'm cooly stating that I can do nothing about your love of guns and your right to harm bears... sorry, bear arms, but that I'd rather I didn't have to partake in your enthusiasm for ammunitions.

Quite why my cynical position is attracting such virulent responses speaks to me of the fact that the passion isn't in my camp, but in yours

.

_____________________________

(in reply to Archer)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:00:14 AM

Posts: 26123
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline

I would love to add to this thread but given my last post, I would be a hypocritial ass.......

_____________________________

My twisted, self deprecating, sense of humour, finds alot to laugh about, in your lack of one!

Just because you are well educated, articulate, and can use big, fancy words, properly........does not mean you are right!

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:00:35 AM

Posts: 5732
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Rabid people want to kill, so we enable them to have guns to kill us, so that we need guns to kill them.

It doesn't make much sense to me, but shoot away to your heart's content... just not in my family's direction, thank you.

That is a classic straw man argument on the second amendment, and it is still wrong. The power to defend oneself from the predations of either one's neighbor or the government is the paramount civil liberty, without which no other liberty is possible.

The First Amendment sanctifies the right of Americans to speak freely, associate freely, and worship freely. The Second Amendment sanctifies the right of Americans to defend those choices against outside attack.

Without the second amendment, the first would not withstand a generation.

_____________________________

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:01:25 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LilMissHaven

I grew up in Alaska, spent my adult years in Nebraska and South Dakota I see my guns as a source of nutrition. I rarely eat any meat other then venison which as far as I know (and I'm sure there is a market out there somewhere) you can't just buy at the grocery store.

I wonder if one's view of guns is determined by where they reside...There's very little crime where I live and have lived so I have honestly never viewed my gun as a source of protection.

Hmmm you've got me thinking now.

See, that's interesting to me as well... if one's reason to own a gun derives from their hunting needs or hobby, perhaps a gun permit could be delivered together with a hunting license... just a suggestion, before anybody else jumps down my throat

.

_____________________________

(in reply to LilMissHaven)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:01:59 AM

Posts: 734
Joined: 12/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: LilMissHaven

I'm not sure I would call someone who keeps a gun in a pretty gun cabinet a "responsible gun owner" The gun cabinets had glass doors, easy to break and the keys were left in a accessable place.

Perhaps - how do you ensure people act responsibly then? Because they're not always as careful as you are. Maybe monthly visits to gun owners by a state appointed agency to check on the safe storing of guns in homes would work .

I would not be against such an agency. But, realistically it would take money that our coffers probably do not hold. I feel that by increasing guidelines for firearm ownership and mandatory gun safety classes, outlawing any gun case not fully crafted in metal, I feel there are a lot of things gun lovers and those who hate them can do to meet in the middle so that both parties are happy.

I as a gun owner try to behave in a mature and educated manner when handling my guns out of respect for those who fear them. Its my hope that in doing so those who fear guns and my right to own them will not take that right away...vote for more stringent guidelines...Hell yes! Vote to have semi's and automatics outlawed...sure. But, to take away my right to own rifles and shotguns is like taking away my right to put food on my table.

_____________________________

I must first learn to master myself, before I can truly be owned by one.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:03:10 AM

Posts: 3207
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline

My passion in this case is for not allowing poorly worded excamples to stand unchallanged, and to go beyond th coursory glance at statistics and encourage actual study of the numbers.

I'm not making a case for you having to partake, simply making sure your facts are given context.
11,000 murders and accidental deaths ballanced against at least 800,000 and maybe as high as 3 million crimes prevented.
1,200 responsible owners before you find one that uses his gun as a tool for crime, has an accident or chooses to end his life.

(in reply to kittinSol)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:05:00 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

Rabid people want to kill, so we enable them to have guns to kill us, so that we need guns to kill them.
It doesn't make much sense to me, but shoot away to your heart's content... just not in my family's direction, thank you.

That is a classic straw man argument on the second amendment, and it is still wrong. The power to defend oneself from the predations of either one's neighbor or the government is the paramount civil liberty, without which no other liberty is possible.

The First Amendment sanctifies the right of Americans to speak freely, associate freely, and worship freely. The Second Amendment sanctifies the right of Americans to defend those choices against outside attack.

Without the second amendment, the first would not withstand a generation.

I don't care about your right to own guns. But you do :-) . Quote the Constitution to your heart's content, it won't change my personal preferences.

< Message edited by kittinSol -- 3/19/2008 8:06:27 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to celticlord2112)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:06:07 AM

Posts: 16926
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LilMissHaven

Hell yes! Vote to have semi's and automatics outlawed...sure. But, to take away my right to own rifles and shotguns is like taking away my right to put food on my table.

Maybe this would be a good compromise.

_____________________________

(in reply to LilMissHaven)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:06:35 AM

Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
The 2nd Amendment is so imprecise and open to intepretation, it seems rather pointless to refer back to it because any intepretation will be more to do with contemporary politics than anything the authors of the amendment meant and who knows what they really meant anyway. It certainly isn't clear by reading the 2nd 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."

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Don't restrict gun ownership, period.

People could mean the collective or the the individual, as in the people v Joe Bloggs, meaning the government institution acting on behalf of the people. It also says a well regulated militia which doesn't actually conjure up the picture of everyone bring along your muskets or pitchforks if you haven't got anything else.

_____________________________

There are fascists who consider themselves humanitarians, like cannibals on a health kick, eating only vegetarians.

(in reply to celticlord2112)

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership - 3/19/2008 8:07:26 AM

Posts: 734
Joined: 12/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

quote:

ORIGINAL: LilMissHaven

I grew up in Alaska, spent my adult years in Nebraska and South Dakota I see my guns as a source of nutrition. I rarely eat any meat other then venison which as far as I know (and I'm sure there is a market out there somewhere) you can't just buy at the grocery store.

I wonder if one's view of guns is determined by where they reside...There's very little crime where I live and have lived so I have honestly never viewed my gun as a source of protection.

Hmmm you've got me thinking now.

See, that's interesting to me as well... if one's reason to own a gun derives from their hunting needs or hobby, perhaps a gun permit could be delivered together with a hunting license... just a suggestion, before anybody else jumps down my throat .

First of all, I am not trying to jump down your throat and hope that I have not come off in that manner I respect your right to your own beliefs.

As for a gun permit being given with a hunting permit that one will probably never fly at the state and federal level. Every year I have to buy a season hunting permit and stamp. Hell will freeze over before the government allows me to hunt for free even on my own land. lol But, I'm all for the idea!!!

_____________________________

I must first learn to master myself, before I can truly be owned by one.

(in reply to kittinSol)

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.145