RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership

RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 6:54:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol What I care about is that my son doesn't get shot. Makes sense? Not getting shot is a simple matter of practicing total situational awareness. Find a good martial arts school and sign him up for some classes.

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 7:09:00 AM)
No, just make sure you keep your guns under lock and key. Like that, you exercise your right all you like, and nobody gets hurt. Easy, no?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 7:17:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol No, just make sure you keep your guns under lock and key. Like that, you exercise your right all you like, and nobody gets hurt. Easy, no? You're venting spleen in the wrong direction. Seek out the malcontents who do not give a tinker's damn for the rights of others and vent spleen on them. I do recommend you practice a bit of situational awareness and vent spleen from a position of good cover so you don't get shot yourself.

MissSCD -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 7:19:20 AM)
I just love how one or two words are viewed differently by people on this thread. You are kidding yourself if you think gun control is not necessary. If guns don't settle things for people, what are they for? They are an accident waiting to happen for people who wish to have peace in their lives. My ex husband had two rifles, a 38, and a 48. I know how to shoot all of them, but I refused to learn how to shoot the 48 because it has fire coming out of it. Now, my final thought on this post is what happened to me when I was married to him. We would drive down the major highway, and he would pull a gun on people. He did not shoot it, but he certainly would have. He shoved me around enough for me to know he would do it. *Now, you are going to say, I should have left, turned him in, etc, etc, but the fact of the matter was I was in shock for about 9 months before I fully realized what he had done.* *Sure we have the right to bear arms; however, we do not have the right to be irresponsible with them.* *Regards, MissSCD*

kittinSol -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 7:21:52 AM)
Hmmm... all I ask is that you're careful with your dangerous toys, and you call that venting spleen? Perhaps you're even more emotionally invested in all this than I am [;)] . Remember, nobody's taking your toys away :-) .

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 7:22:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MissSCD *Sure we have the right to bear arms; however, we do not have the right to be irresponsible with them.* *Regards, MissSCD* I am sure all gun advocates will agree with you there!

Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 7:34:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I think its more simple than that. Some Americans just love their guns. There's no getting around it. This love blinds them to the harm they cause. This love deludes them into thinking citizen ownership of weapons curbs Gov't tyranny. This love makes them utter ridiculous statements like, "laws don't protect anyone," or it makes them extend equal protection claims used for minorities (blacks, disabled, gays) to gun owners. I think you're exactly right; love, and force of habit. The mere thought of losing their guns has 90% of the posters on this thread drooling with anger - yet, the Supreme Court just went and reinforced their beloved right to own the fucking guns! People who share a point of view end up squabbling pettily over minute points of detail so blinded they are by the issue... It's ironic to me that in a young country such as America, so many people are choosing to live in this medieval state of fear and paranoia. To hold on to the guns and say "fuck you!" to the community at large... it makes sense, in the most invidualistic society in the world. I hear the argument that "it's my right!" on a loop; but it's also my right to not get shot by some gun toting cretin - as you know, guys and girls, not all gun lovers are kind hearted, responsible citizens... And some argue that if I owned a gun, I would be able to defend myself. But if I get shot in the back, it won't matter whether I had a gun or not anyway. Those that cling on to their guns for dear life... good for you. But don't get all rabid on those of us who argue that perhaps, doing away with firearms might lead, eventually, to a gentler, kinder society. We still have the right to free speech... until we get shot in the head. Kitten and cloudboy; I have supplied a link of the history and developement of the concept of the rights to bear arms on the previous page. Here are the links again that you may I hope at least read it so you understand its not the result of some crazed murderous gun fanatic that likes to kill people for sport but it evoled over the years and dates all the way back to bear skins and bone knives. By enabvling governments to take away guns then only the government will have guns and that is what adolf hitler did in germany. Here are the links: http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn7 http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html#fn7

cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 8:15:56 AM)
Caitlyn, you are missing my point. I haven't actually questioned gun ownership or advocated gun regulation. (See my posts.) What I HAVE QUESTIONED are the purported arguments of unregulated gun ownership in the USA. I was specific in my examples. Basically most of the arguments fold like a house of cards. If that's the case, then the arguments lack a rational basis. Clearly gun ownership has a personal basis to it, but as I see it, folks elevate that personal basis into a "sacred right." This is where I see a leap. Keep in mind here, too, that we are only talking about regulation --- not a government ban or prohibition. As you yourself have pointed out in the past, folks don't get nearly as worked up about Automobile, zoning, environmental, and other regulations. When listening to the extreme right on this issue, they give the impression that they would prefer to live in a lawless society with abundant gun ownership than to live in a lawful society with restricted gun ownership. When the rubber hits the road, though, you really don't see that many Americans hopping on a plane for Afghanistan or Somalia.

cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 8:39:55 AM)
The problem with your argument here is how too much individual liberty leads to anarchy. The best pathway to liberty that we know is civil contract; and the lynchpin of all civil contracts is some degree of individual subordination to societal laws. In many cases that subordination leads to a net gain in liberty. Also, the idea that Gun ownership is a pathway to civil utopia just isn't supported by history; and in modern times there is abundant evidence that an overly armed population devolves into chaos: somalia & Afghanistan. As for the US, the right to bear arms did not protect Asian rights during WWII. It did not help emancipate African Americans. It did not give women the right to vote. Frankly, I'm not sure what its given us, if anything at all. At best, I think it gives Americans a sense of individualism and personal freedom --- but it gives this with steep external costs to general society. The question is, are those costs avoidable or not? Legislatures do have the right to engage in a cost-benefit analysis here.

caitlyn -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 9:03:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy What I HAVE QUESTIONED are the purported arguments of unregulated gun ownership in the USA. I was specific in my examples. Basically most of the arguments fold like a house of cards. If that's the case, then the arguments lack a rational basis. When you start talking about things like "love of guns" and use terms like "blind and ignorant" in your debate, you place yourself in to the arena of judging the motivation of others by factors that are basically opinions ... and opinions on people you really don't know, and who have shoes in which you have never walked. I find nothing useful or helpful in that. I carry a hand gun. Do you think I love it? Do you think my fears are blind and ignorant? You really don't know, now do you? They may be, and may not be. You don't live where I live, or interact in the same circles. You have none of my life experiences ... you don't even know what they are. The same holds true of Michael, Fargle, Celtic, kSol, and even yourself. None of us has a clue at what motivates another person ... but the simple truth is that I have seen no poster here question your right to not own a gun. This is why your side will never win on this point ... because thinking and divining the motives of other people, is a non-starter ... always has been, and always will be.

meatcleaver -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 9:21:53 AM)
caitlyn, there is something about the iconic status the gun has in America, guns don't have such an iconic status in any other country that I'm aware of, not even in countries that have liberal gun law. Guns are either needed by individual citizens in the US because of the lawless nature of American society or they are not. I can't say I have noticed on my trips to the US that it is a uniquely lawless place.

caitlyn -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 9:35:20 AM)
Do you think for a minute that you met even .01% of total Americans in your travels here? What you know, is the opinions you were able to gather from your own perceptions, based on a sample group so small that is has no statistical meaning.

cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 9:50:13 AM)
You haven't made any irrational arguments here. You haven't claimed gun ownership is an immutable human trait. You have not claimed that gun ownership is absolute. You have not claimed that democracy is built on a foundation of gun ownership. You have not disavowed the societal costs of gun ownership. I don't see these things in your posts. You are rational, you want a gun, believe in having one, and own one. Its a personal decision you want to make. In that decision, you are not extrapolating any utopian ideals, at least not yet. But where does a gun proponent draw the line? Suppose you insisted you had the right to carry it into you college classrooms, or into courtrooms and airplanes, etc. Where exactly does one circumscribe the Second Amendment? As for history, armed rebellions in Russia by the masses under Pugachev, Razin, Bolotnikov, and Bulavin only stregthened the Centralized authority of the Tsarist autocracy in the end. The Bolshevic Revolution, which was an armed resurrection, led not to liberty but to tyranny. Liberty really lies in the quality of a society's civil contract, not in the armament of its population. I challenge anyone to debunk this position. I use terms like "blind" and "ignorant" b/c certain gun proponent positions are simply irrational, not based in fact, and not justified by history. They also tend to disavowel the offensive, aggressive nature of weapons. The common refrain from gun proponents that an armed German population would have prevented the rise of Hitler --- that kind of thinking is just far fetched at best. How am I supposed to give such a position credence?

meatcleaver -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 9:57:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Do you think for a minute that you met even .01% of total Americans in your travels here? What you know, is the opinions you were able to gather from your own perceptions, based on a sample group so small that is has no statistical meaning. OK I give in, the US is a uniquely lawless place where survival requires possessing a gun.

meatcleaver -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 10:03:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The common refrain from gun proponents that an armed German population would have prevented the rise of Hitler --- that kind of thinking is just far fetched at best. How am I supposed to give such a position credence? Many of Hitler's supporters were armed civilians and probably had personal politics similar to many leading members of the NRA from what I have heard the NRA members espousing.

caitlyn -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 10:05:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy You haven't made any irrational arguments here. Allow me to make one then. [;)] I rarely watch television news, but by chance happened to see Keith Olbermann go off on an anti-gun diatribe about three weeks ago on MSNBC. He had a guest, who calmly pointed out that Mr. Olbermann employs a bodyguard, who carries a registered firearm. It might be time to consider that while you might not think the position of the pro-gun lobby makes sense ... they might feel exactly the same way about your position. The difference being, yet again, I haven't seen anyone on the pro-gun side, questioning your decision to not own one.

caitlyn -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 10:15:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver OK I give in, the US is a uniquely lawless place where survival requires possessing a gun. The majority of Americans living in rural areas, own guns. Rural America is one of the safest places on the planet to live. You will possibly never understand. What I see here is a lot of people that oppose guns, taking a position that two plus two, either equals three, or five ... and are unwilling to accept that the answer just might be four. That of course, is only my observation, based on an equally small sample group.

cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 10:40:21 AM)
There's a difference between personal choices and public policy. Some day, when you're on a bender, you might actually start arguing that the DC gun laws have us cascading 50 steps closer to a fascist dictatorship. I don't know what regulations would be most prudent. I do know this, and I can't say I agree with it either; but if non citizen in the USA is convicted of any gun violation whatsoever, he is deportable. Oddly, the NRA hasn't gone to bat for long term permanent residents or non immigrants in the USA. (As far as I know.) There's an instance where I think the punishment outweighs the crime (as for say in the instance of possessing a licensed firearm.) There are also other instances where gun possession penalties are unfair and overbroad.

luckydog1 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 10:40:40 AM)
Cloudboy, "As for the US, the right to bear arms did not protect Asian rights during WWII. It did not help emancipate African Americans. It did not give women the right to vote. Frankly, I'm not sure what its given us, if anything at all. At best, I think it gives Americans a sense of individualism and personal freedom --- but it gives this with steep external costs to general society. " The first Gun bans in the USA were aimed at Blacks. That Blacks could not own guns was one of the bedrocks of Jim Crow. This isn't new, it used to be illegal for a peasant to own a sword in most fuedal systems. The Asain Americans did not choose to fight against thier treatment, for fairly complicated reasons, I won't try to put words in their mouths. Under the Dhimi laws Jews and Christians could not own weopons. Whats wierd is that people think a country where only people with regular access to Cocaine and Meth have guns, would be any safer or better?

sensiia -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/20/2008 10:48:22 AM)
It is so sad it took the Supreme Court to uhphold our Constitution, which shouldn't need to be protected by our court system. It should be protected as to what this country was founded on, by our Forefathers. The US Constitution! I have held guns in my hands thanks to my dad since I was 5 yers old. My daughter learned to shoot at 5 also and has her own cricket single shot 22 cal rifle. It is so awesome, It was education we were taught and I respect firearms of any make or model. I was trained in guns for over 10 years and was and still am very good at it, if I don't mind saying. Why do we need our currupt court system to dictate our Constitution. I think we are losing our independence if we haven't lost it already. We can see it through our markets today, hang on people we are slowly losing our Freedoms, it is the people who need to stand up and voice our concerns not our delegates, congressmen, etc, etc. Is is all written in the Constitution, our ancestors founded this country not the politicians. Signed One frustrated, born and bred American. I chose to submit to someone, I will not allow my country to enslave me without my permission, that would be nonconsensual, wouldn't it? walks away from her rant a bit lighter ....

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875