Time to repeal the Second Amendment?

[shagdrum]

The natural right to defend one's self is destroyed, or at least damaged, when the implements necessary to that defense are made unavailable. As above, the right to be free IS the right to be armed.

BINGO!!

In a world where guns exist, taking away guns is taking away a right to defend yourself...unless you can dodge (or stop) bullets, like Neo.

The focus on restricting guns ONLY makes any sense if you reasonable think you can remove guns from the face of the Earth.

 

[TheDude]

Being a novice(which I hope to correct someday)with a gun , I can say with a fairly confident tone that I could purposely kill/injure more people in one day with my 2+ ton old Benz than I could with a gun.

Just saying.

 

[foxpaws]

There are also many ways to define "defend".

Going on the offensive is, in many circumstances, part of defense. Look at the approach of most any martial art. If offense were not part defense then there would be no reason to learn how to strike (kick, punch, etc).

Don't good martial arts classes teach you that avoidance is the preferred path shag?

And being on the 'offense' with guns is taking classes, getting CWPs, learning how not to get into stupid situations where guns might be drawn.

Same sort of thing - you know how to shoot - but you aren't going out there purposefully looking to kill someone.

 

[Calabrio]

You're so clever when you make incoherent nonsequetorial attempts at sarcasm only you understand

That's my nickname for you.
SCTLS has no vowels, so I'll add them...
Not sarcastic, just conversational.
I don't care for acronistic handles, particularly in an environment intended for discussion.

 

[foxpaws]

Being a novice(which I hope to correct someday)with a gun , I can say with a fairly confident tone that I could purposely kill/injure more people in one day with my 2+ ton old Benz than I could with a gun.

Just saying.

You are back - hi Dude!!!!

Yep - as I said - crazy ladies really seem to like old Benz's for big car weapon of choice.

However they aren't really good for defense, unless the circumstances are just right - give me my old Sig Sauer anyday...

 

[cammerfe]

Bang

...why would you remove gang killings - they are deaths, and some would be removed with gun control laws - drive by 'knifings' are difficult at best... Maybe they would go for bows and arrows...

Nah, bows and arrows require some degree of skill. But it's not too much of a stretch to think of gang-bangers taking a trip to the supermarket and purchasing a list of readily-available items that, combined, will make possible some sort of explosive device. In fact, the 'recipe' for nitrogen tri-iodide is readily available on the internet, and is exceedingly easy to prepare. Put some in a 6X1-inch pipe nipple and screw caps on both ends and you have a grenade that requires no further preparation. Simply throw it---and be careful of it until the throw. Has the potential to kill a dozen people at a time and there's nothing at all proscribed until it's all together.

One toss will do it---much more easy than pulling a trigger a dozen times.

In fact, all you libtards should be thankful for guns. Their lethality is limited. You see, doing away with guns would not remove the impulse to do great bodily harm. But if there were no guns, such a scenario as above could become exceedingly common.

KS

 

[Calabrio]

We should talk about murder only cal, shouldn't we - or do you want to avoid that because guns are the weapon of choice when it comes to murder. It is a fact - why avoid it?

There is no reason to avoid the topic, but that isn't the issue that Scuttles brought up. The statistics, then the source of the statistics, and then the motivations of the source, really aren't significant when discussing the merit of the second amendment. So investing too much time in it only serves as a distraction.

And why would you remove gang killings - they are deaths, and some would be removed with gun control laws - drive by 'knifings' are difficult at best... Maybe they would go for bows and arrows...

Why would I "remove" gang killings? I would distinguish them. Because they represent a social problem, less one related to gun ownership. Gang members aren't using legal firearms, they don't have CCWs. And, historically, those gang statistics tend to be very specific and concentrated to a few major cities. They also TEND to be crimes committed against other criminals. There are innocent people killed as well, but depending on the source, those victims sometimes aren't included in that figure.

Again, I didn't say remove the figures, but distinguish them because it warps the perception of reality.

Ah, no cal - actually I know that piece you linked to very well....

Well enough to misrepresent it...

If you actually read the piece - it is a rather aggressive rebuttal of various surveys of how often gun owners use their weapons in a defense scenario -

I didn't source it because of the editorial tone of it, the Clinton Justice Department was ANTI-handgun. However, the Kleck survey was sourced in it.

Most notable has been a much publicized estimate of
2.5 million DGUs, based on data from a 1994
telephone survey conducted by Florida State
University professors Gary Kleck and Mark
Gertz.[13] The 2.5 million figure has been picked
up by the press and now appears regularly in
newspaper articles, letters to the editor,
editorials, and even Congressional Research Service
briefs for public policymakers.
​

But this further demonstrates why the whizzing match with statistics is a waste of time. I'll reference the Kleck surveys and you'll find some anti-gun statistic. Then we'll both complain about the methodology and agenda of the source. I can take issue with the method used NCVS study as well which would result in the figure being unrealistically LOW.

Regardless the number we use, if the handgun was actively used over 100,000 times a year using the low figure- that's a significant amount of safety. And there is no way to calculate specifically how greatly the FEAR of an armed potential victim prevents crime as well. But 100,000+ uses of defense vs. less than 10,000 deaths demonstrates a greater good.

I agree - but is one of the social issues the acceptance of gun violence as 'norm'? Do we need to accept all gun violence as the price we pay for individual freedom? Is some gun violence preventable without infringing our our ability to 'defend' ourselves, our family or our property?

You're trying to reframe this again.
VIOLENCE isn't to be accepted as a norm. The tool used to engage in such violent activity is secondary.

Do we need to accept gun violence as a price for freedom? That's absurd. First, it presumes that there would be no violence if law abiding citizens were restricted from owning these guns. Those same gang members and criminals committing the crimes with firearms will be preying on innocent regardless, and they'll find ways to get guns and weapons.

And "some gun violence" could easily be prevented if we destigmatized the gun in our culture and people were simply better educated when it comes to the most basic handling of firearms.

 

[foxpaws]

Nah, bows and arrows require some degree of skill. But it's not too much of a stretch to think of gang-bangers taking a trip to the supermarket and purchasing a list of readily-available items that, combined, will make possible some sort of explosive device. In fact, the 'recipe' for nitrogen tri-iodide is readily available on the internet, and is exceedingly easy to prepare. Put some in a 6X1-inch pipe nipple and screw caps on both ends and you have a grenade that requires no further preparation. Simply throw it---and be careful of it until the throw. Has the potential to kill a dozen people at a time and there's nothing at all proscribed until it's all together.

One toss will do it---much more easy than pulling a trigger a dozen times.

But, it takes a lot more 'thought' and planning... Guns are a weapon of passion and 'instant' gratification.

I agree, I would rather have them shooting guns then using bombs. I am not for removing guns from our society KS - the only thing I ask is that we look at weapons and evaluate them, along with the delivery methods, on a 'defense or offense' criteria. We do that already. We highly regulate fully automatic weapons - because we view them as an 'offense' weapon.

In fact, all you libtards should be thankful for guns. Their lethality is limited. You see, doing away with guns would not remove the impulse to do great bodily harm. But if there were no guns, such a scenario as above could become exceedingly common.

KS

Yes - you do get it - limited 'lethality' is important - that is the key when you look at guns for offense or guns for defense.

Libtards - that is the best you can do KS?

 

[Calabrio]

Don't good martial arts classes teach you that avoidance is the preferred path shag?

Yes.

And being on the 'offense' with guns is taking classes, getting CWPs, learning how not to get into stupid situations where guns might be drawn.

Yes. Someone with a concealed weapon has greater legal responsibility.
And they also have much lower rates of criminal behavior.

Same sort of thing - you know how to shoot - but you aren't going out there purposefully looking to kill someone.

Exactly.
The myth about every gun owner walking around like some fantasized western t.v. program is a construct of the anti-gun hysterics.

 

[04SCTLS]

'04, I gotta admit that you make me waver back and forth between seeing you as an agent provocateur sowing discord around here in order to be able to s:q:q:q:q:q:q, and just a liberal twit. You usually make some valid points no matter where you are 'coming down' at the time. But more often, I simply shake my head in dismay.

One more time, here, you've managed to talk out of both sides of your mouth, and almost simultaneously at that!

KS

(And one more time our PC website tries to bowdlerize my statements. I wasn't aware that S N I G G E R was a proscribed word!?!?!?)

Well KS I didn't want to dissapoint your expectations of me
Maybe I should be a politician

I certainly got the conversation going on an otherwise uneventful day!

 

[cammerfe]

...but names will never harm me...

Libtards - that is the best you can do KS?

Nah, it's just easy---and SO appropriate!

KS

 

[04SCTLS]

That's my nickname for you.
SCTLS has no vowels, so I'll add them...
Not sarcastic, just conversational.
I don't care for acronistic handles, particularly in an environment intended for discussion.

I joined this board because I have an LS and picked a name but then I found you guys and this forum.
If you want to call me Scuttles or something I'll call you NOMAD the damaged space probe that Kirk and Spock destroyed with logic in the original series by pointing out to it that it was flawed and Kirk was not the creator.
"I am Nomad, I am perfect...
Or should I call you Ronny or Bonzo?

 

[foxpaws]

Regardless the number we use, if the handgun was actively used over 100,000 times a year using the low figure- that's a significant amount of safety. And there is no way to calculate specifically how greatly the FEAR of an armed potential victim prevents crime as well. But 100,000+ uses of defense vs. less than 10,000 deaths demonstrates a greater good.

Once again - I am not against guns - at all - for defensive purposes - or sport. I am only for looking at how we 'evaluate' guns. Are they defensive weapons - or are they offensive weapons.

And even if we can finally get to that debate - do you think the founding fathers in the second amendment were allowing 'open season' as it were, when it came to the right to bear arms?

VIOLENCE isn't to be accepted as a norm. The tool used to engage in such violent activity is secondary.

Do we need to accept gun violence as a price for freedom? That's absurd. First, it presumes that there would be no violence if law abiding citizens were restricted from owning these guns. Those same gang members and criminals committing the crimes with firearms will be preying on innocent regardless, and they'll find ways to get guns and weapons.

And "some gun violence" could easily be prevented if we destigmatized the gun in our culture and people were simply better educated when it comes to the most basic handling of firearms.

If you allow offensive weapons to be made accessible by the average person/gang member - aren't you promoting gun violence?

How many crimes are committed with fully automatic weapons - very few - they are hard to get, and complicated to get, and criminals usually don't have the where with all, or the time to get them. If they were easy to get, like an old Colt - then crimes would be committed with them. Some gun control is acceptable to society - I am interested in the discussion of where and how that line is drawn.

So, how do you remove the stigma of gun ownership Cal? I am really interested.

 

[cammerfe]

Libtards, Sheeple, and the RIGHT to Bear Arms

Once again - I am not against guns - at all - for defensive purposes - or sport. I am only for looking at how we 'evaluate' guns. Are they defensive weapons - or are they offensive weapons.

Unless you live in Isher, they're both. It all depends on the intent of the user---and that's the important thing anyway. It's well proven that you can't legislate against intent, and an attempted end run by legislating agains a means is simply a 'libtard' feel good without practicality.

And even if we can finally get to that debate - do you think the founding fathers in the second amendment were allowing 'open season' as it were, when it came to the right to bear arms?

No one(s) but 'libtards' is/are suggesting 'open season'. You're off point to make such a suggestion.

If you allow offensive weapons to be made accessible by the average person/gang member - aren't you promoting gun violence?

Again, the only difference between 'defensive' and 'offensive' is intent. See above. As an example I first got a CCW---as they were called then---almost fifty years ago, and have had some sort of firearm (sometimes including a MAC-10) with me for most of that time. But I've never robbed a bank or pulled a stick-up in all those years.

How many crimes are committed with fully automatic weapons - very few - they are hard to get, and complicated to get, and criminals usually don't have the where with all, or the time to get them. If they were easy to get, like an old Colt - then crimes would be committed with them. Some gun control is acceptable to society - I am interested in the discussion of where and how that line is drawn.

I'm sitting here looking at two examples of a Colt pistol of a 100-year-old design. This sort of design is extremely ubiquitous and changing it over to fully-automatic is a simple process of leaving out a part or two. It works just fine that way, but it's simply unnecessary.

There's no line to be drawn. It's simply more 'straw-man' argumentation. The only gun control I'll willingly accept is that associated with hitting what I shoot at.

So, how do you remove the stigma of gun ownership Cal? I am really interested.

There is no stigma except in the minds of libtards and those sheeple who are influenced by them.

KS (Not Cal, but I answered anyway.)

 

[04SCTLS]

Unless you live in Isher, they're both. It all depends on the intent of the user---and that's the important thing anyway. It's well proven that you can't legislate against intent, and an attempted end run by legislating agains a means is simply a 'libtard' feel good without practicality.



No one(s) but 'libtards' is/are suggesting 'open season'. You're off point to make such a suggestion.




Again, the only difference between 'defensive' and 'offensive' is intent. See above.



I'm sitting here looking at two examples of a Colt pistol of a 100-year-old design. This sort of design is extremely ubiquitous and changing it over to fully-automatic is a simple process of leaving out a part or two. It works just fine that way, but it's simply unnecessary.

There's no line to be drawn. It's simply more 'straw-man' argumentation. The only gun control I'll willingly accept is that associated with hitting what I shoot at.




There is no stigma except in the minds of libtards and those sheeple who are influenced by them.

KS (Not Cal, but I answered anyway.)

Since there's too many guns easily available everyone should get one for protection is what it boils down to.

 

[cammerfe]

Choice

Since there's too many guns easily available everyone should get one for protection is what it boils down to.

There's no such thing as too many guns. And no 'should' about it. It is, and 'should' be, a matter of individual choice. The government, and all the libtards around, know nothing about me and 'should' have no voice in my personal activities.

KS

 

[foxpaws]

Unless you live in Isher, they're both. It all depends on the intent of the user---and that's the important thing anyway. It's well proven that you can't legislate against intent, and an attempted end run by legislating agains a means is simply a 'libtard' feel good without practicality.

I can't legislate 'intent' but, some weapons are for offense KS - as I said fully automatic weapons have been legislated because we view them as an 'offense' type weapon. You don't need to defend your home with a fully automatic weapon - nor do you need anti-tank defenses, we have drawn lines -we will continue to draw lines. There is something know as 'reasonable expectations' KS - and weapon laws fall within that.

Are mega round magazines offensive or defensive - can you make a case one way or another? That is where the Giffords incident will take us. And if they aren't 'reasonable' with regards to defense, then, is that a line that society deems is acceptable?

Society decides all the time regarding scope of rights. It happens to the first all the time. It happens to the 2nd all the time.

No one(s) but 'libtards' is/are suggesting 'open season'. You're off point to make such a suggestion.

OK, you draw a line - where is it KS? So, we aren't talking 'open season' with regards to the 2nd - where is the line? I am not off-point - because you haven't stated where that line is, according to you, and how you would back up that line with regards to the 2nd. And why is your line in the sand correct, whereas others' 'lines' are incorrect?

Again, the only difference between 'defensive' and 'offensive' is intent. See above. As an example I first got a CCW---as they were called then---almost fifty years ago, and have had some sort of firearm (sometimes including a MAC-10) with me for most of that time. But I've never robbed a bank or pulled a stick-up in all those years.

This isn't about citizens legally having firearms KS - it is about the type of firearms, etc, that are available to everyone. Because if it is available to you, it is available to criminals. Once again, we restrict fully automatic weapons - it is hard for 'common' citizens to get them, so, they, in turn, are difficult for 'common' criminals to get them. However, open up the restrictions, and there would be thousands of gang bangers with fully automatic weapons. Not a great idea, so, we restrict.

I'm sitting here looking at two examples of a Colt pistol of a 100-year-old design. This sort of design is extremely ubiquitous and changing it over to fully-automatic is a simple process of leaving out a part or two. It works just fine that way, but it's simply unnecessary.

Unnecessary - why? Because criminals don't have easy access to that sort of weapon - fully automatic weapons? If they did - you probably would be looking to acquire them as well - the stakes increase.

There's no line to be drawn. It's simply more 'straw-man' argumentation. The only gun control I'll willingly accept is that associated with hitting what I shoot at.

There is no stigma except in the minds of libtards and those sheeple who are influenced by them.

There is a line we draw - you do KS - you just aren't willing to state it. I am sure that the idea of citizens owning anti-aircraft weapons isn't something you would be clamoring for.

There is a stigma - and it does inhibit the discussion on common sense gun control laws. People who don't understand guns, have a habit of shunning people who own them as 'red-neck hillbillies with no education'. They often want to ban all gun ownership. What is a good way to get those same people to understand why gun ownership is a viable, necessary liberty in this country?

Isn't admitting that there are lines to be drawn one way of opening that conversation? As a gun owner - I admit that I have 'lines' that I am comfortable with, and 'lines' that I am uncomfortable with. But, because of the attitude of many of the 'loudest' defenders of the 2nd amendment, it appears to the 'libtards' that it is all or nothing to them.

It isn't, just as you said - it isn't 'open season'. So how do you get that point across to everyone?

 

[Calabrio]

If you allow offensive weapons to be made accessible by the average person/gang member - aren't you promoting gun violence?

Why are you equating the "average person" with a gang member.

So, how do you remove the stigma of gun ownership Cal? I am really interested.

Exposure to them so that they are no longer defined by entertainment and politicians.

Guns demystify very quickly once you hold or fire one.
However, many people, particularly in areas like New York, have never even touched a handgun.

 

[foxpaws]

Why are you equating the "average person" with a gang member.

I am equating them in the types of weapons they have easily available to them. If I can buy an automatic weapon easily, then a gang member will have similar easy access to them.

Exposure to them so that they are no longer defined by entertainment and politicians.

Guns demystify very quickly once you hold or fire one.
However, many people, particularly in areas like New York, have never even touched a handgun.

sounds great - how do you do that?

 

[ONEBADMK8]

Come and TRY to take my arsenal, thats all I have to say, there will be "strange" remains for fingerprints.

 

[shagdrum]

And why would you remove gang killings - they are deaths, and some would be removed with gun control laws - drive by 'knifings' are difficult at best... Maybe they would go for bows and arrows...

No, they haven't and wouldn't.

As Cal pointed out, gang members don't get their guns through legal means. Most are convicted felons by the time they are 18 anyway and are already not legally permited to possess a firearm, yet they have them.

Unless you can remove all guns off the face of the earth, gun control laws only empower criminals while taking away the most effective means of law abiding citizens to defend themselves (thus infringing on their rights).

 

[shagdrum]

If you allow offensive weapons to be made accessible by the average person/gang member - aren't you promoting gun violence?

The vast majority of them ARE NOT allowed to have guns. Again, by the time most are 18, they are already convicted criminals and not allowed to possess firearms by law. Still, most of them do.

You seem to be ignoring that reality.

 

[Calabrio]

The areas with the greatest amounts of gang related crime are also the areas with the most restrictive gun laws. L.A. has the most gang violence and extremely burdensome and restrictive gun control laws.

I am equating them in the types of weapons they have easily available to them. If I can buy an automatic weapon easily, then a gang member will have similar easy access to them.

Gang members are either underage or they usually already have criminal records, so they aren't capable of buying fire arms legal.
Nor do they attempt to buy them through legal channels.
Nor do they spend the time and money to earn a concealed carry license.
They are criminals engaged in criminal activity.

If you disarm society, you will guarantee that ONLY the criminals are armed. That's not just hyperbole.

And even if we melted every gun down, the criminal element would STILL be predatory, however normal people would have no way of defending themselves.

sounds great - how do you do that?

For starters, schools should allow the NRA and that Eagle character into the schools to talk to kids about safety. When there are sex problems in schools, they teach graphic sex ed. But when there are problems with gun violence in the community, we're afraid some goofball in an eagle costume is going to cause more violence by talking to kids about not pointing guns at other people?

Beyond that, it's difficult.
Hand gun owners need to be ambassadors and do their part in representing weapons respectably. Tell people that we own and sometimes carry. Bring them to the range. And we need to tell the owners who are harmless but over compensate when it comes to the rhetoric to shut up.

It's always going to be difficult when you have a class of people who are actively using dishonest means to scare people into banning them.

 

[foxpaws]

No, they haven't and wouldn't.

As Cal pointed out, gang members don't get their guns through legal means. Most are convicted felons by the time they are 18 anyway and are already not legally permited to possess a firearm, yet they have them.

Unless you can remove all guns off the face of the earth, gun control laws only empower criminals while taking away the most effective means of law abiding citizens to defend themselves (thus infringing on their rights).

You are correct - we can't remove all the guns off the face of the earth...

However, if you look in the case of automatic weapons - we really don't have many crimes being committed with them, why - because they are very difficult to get.

Over time - the availability of a weapon within the populace is what dictates what is also available to criminals. It is pretty easy to buy semi automatic weapons - and many crimes are committed with them. They are easy for criminals and 'would-be' criminals to get on the secondary market.

Can't by an automatic weapon - well, guess what, it is pretty difficult for some 'let's rob the grocery store' criminal to get one either.

Removing a certain type of weapon doesn't empower criminals.

 

[foxpaws]

Gang members are either underage or they usually already have criminal records, so they aren't capable of buying fire arms legal.
Nor do they attempt to buy them through legal channels.
Nor do they spend the time and money to earn a concealed carry license.
They are criminals engaged in criminal activity.

If you disarm society, you will guarantee that ONLY the criminals are armed. That's not just hyperbole.

And even if we melted every gun down, the criminal element would STILL be predatory, however normal people would have no way of defending themselves.

Quit that - I am not for disarming society. Have I stated that anywhere? Criminals will commit crimes with lethal rabbits feet, scratching out the eyes of shop owners if it comes to that. There have always been criminals - that won't go away.

But, why won't you answer the simple question - because you draw a line when it comes to the 2nd - where do you draw the line Cal?

This isn't even worth discussing if you can't honestly answer that question.

For starters, schools should allow the NRA and that Eagle character into the schools to talk to kids about safety. When there are sex problems in schools, they teach graphic sex ed. But when there are problems with gun violence in the community, we're afraid some goofball in an eagle costume is going to cause more violence by talking to kids about not pointing guns at other people?

That is a great idea - gun safety - and with kids is the very best place to start. But, you got to get parents on board as well.

And sex ed isn't taught in all schools - at least the 'graphic' kind. And I think you would find that schools that are open to gun safety education are also the ones that might balk the most at graphic sexual education.

Different issues within different parts of America I would imagine.

Beyond that, it's difficult.
Hand gun owners need to be ambassadors and do their part in representing weapons respectably. Tell people that we own and sometimes carry. Bring them to the range. And we need to tell the owners who are harmless but over compensate when it comes to the rhetoric to shut up.

It's always going to be difficult when you have a class of people who are actively using dishonest means to scare people into banning them.

The overblown rhetoric on both sides creates huge problems. Passion and reason often don't reside in the same boat.