RE: not another US guns thread

RE: not another US guns thread (Full Version)

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

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 10:27:03 AM)
But isn't being pro-gun based on personal feelings too?

darkinshadows -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 10:34:13 AM)
I am not a person who has a great love for guns. But then again, I do not believe that guns are the reason people die. They are the tool. Your question is - Given the parameters above, what arguments can be found to deny such a person ownership? My answer is - none. However I would also add, that this being the case - I would also say that even if the person had a criminal records, or psychological/psychiatric issues, who doesnt pay taxes, may be seen as an irresponsible citizen, should also be allowed the same rights. After all, it is the right to bare arms. Peace

hisannabelle -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 10:41:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania But isn't being pro-gun based on personal feelings too? exactly.

mistoferin -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 10:42:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania But isn't being pro-gun based on personal feelings too? Well I guess it could be for some. I am pro gun because I have a need for them. I'd do it a different way but damn those deer are fast....I haven't managed to catch one to bare handed strangle it yet.

juliaoceania -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 10:43:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania But isn't being pro-gun based on personal feelings too? You know, I was just thinking about something in relation to this last post. 9 minors each day die because of gun deaths. Most of these deaths could be prevented with proper storage of guns. Perhaps there should be a criminal liablity for people who store their guns negligently. Perhaps the same laws that deal with reckless endangerment, negligent homocide, should apply. Perhaps people would be more careful if they thought they could be put in prison for failing to secure their weapons... just a thought.

darkinshadows -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 10:46:47 AM)
Hello Erin... [:)] (we haven't spoken in tooooo long) But why are you shooting deer? Because they are endangering crops? For sport? Either way - its still for personal feelings. For sport - the personal feeling is because you are doing something you enjoy. For protection... because you personally feel there is no other option. It may be a pratical solution, but it is still based on a personal position. Peace and Rapture

mistoferin -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 10:57:42 AM)
ahhhh dark....yes it has been too long. I've been down this road a bunch of times (not necessarily with you) and I have explained in great detail the need for hunting. While some may do it for sport or enjoyment, I do it to carry my part of the responsibility to ensure that the needless suffering of such animals in the environment that we as human beings have created is kept to a minimum. Conservation is a responsibility.

darkinshadows -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:02:19 AM)
Oh Erin, I know you have the need and you have a concept of the need. But its still personal. You have a personal belief (as you stated above) and therefore your hunting does come down to your personal feelings - as others may disagree with you that is their personal feelings. So owning a firearm or not owning one always comes down to personal feelings. Peace and Rapture

mistoferin -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:09:06 AM)
You are correct dark, my feelings of responsibility are personal, as is my inability to understand how others do not see that they too, have that responsibility. However, the need for conservation is not personal....it is a very stark reality.

juliaoceania -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:21:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin You are correct dark, my feelings of responsibility are personal, as is my inability to understand how others do not see that they too, have that responsibility. However, the need for conservation is not personal....it is a very stark reality. But there are other ways to reduce the deer herds in your area that do not require personal gun ownership. One of them is having fish and game responsible for the putting down of such animals. There are all sorts of micro-level species that get out of control at one point or another, we do not need to shoot them. So still, it is your personal sense that this is the one true way to control deer populations ( I prefer their natural predators when possible), but it is not the only way or the preferable way for everyone. I grew up around deer herds. In nature the ones that are weak die off, the ones that are strong live on. Hunters often take the most successful deer out of the environment, leaving the weaker ones (diseased, starving) to reproduce. I am not inherently against shooting bambi for food mind you, but I just wanted to point out, there are other ways

Crush -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:24:07 AM)
Actually, it isn't in the US Constitution, but in the Second 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." A good discussion of the various interpretations is in Wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution My read, based on my own research into the Federalist Papers and other such documents: I have the right, as granted by the 2nd Amendment, and it shall not be infringed.

SimplyMichael -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:32:09 AM)
The British Government adopted gun control under the guise of being anti-crime but it was in fact later revealed to be anti-union, anti-civil rights, and completely about ensuring government control.

LadyEllen -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:42:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: Why then, are we all so frightened of one another? I'm asking that from the point of view of the UK, where we dont have guns remember. I want to take the debate away from the US circumstances specifically, so that we can try to get to the heart of the issue. This question cuts both ways, doesn't it? For everyone that owns a handgun for self defense, why are they so afraid? On the other side of it, those who want to ban all handguns, why are they so afraid of those who do? I want to start from the position that all we fear one another sufficiently that we dont trust each other to behave responsibly - leaving guns out of it altogether for the moment. This is the position in the UK - we are not trusted by authority and we dont trust one another. Why is that? Are sufficient of us so prone to be warped and untrustworthy that no one can be trusted to act responsibly? Or is it rather that we are unduly suspicious of one another? E

mistoferin -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:42:36 AM)
julia, there were an estimated 415,000 deer taken in 2006 in Michigan. The Department of Natural Resources states that the deer population is still too high. Hunting is the method of conservation that the DNR has chosen to address the issue. Actually, it is the method chosen nationwide in areas that deer live. Now I do not claim to know how this decision was arrived at but I would have to think that some thought and research surely must have played a part as to the best method of management. Deer are fairly large animals and I believe that their natural predators would likely wreak havoc on the human population. I'm not aware of another viable method of management that would not require the DNR to employ literally thousands more people. Not to mention the trickle down that would happen in all other areas of the environment from the loss of revenue that the hunters provide that is used to fund environmental programs across the board. Regardless, this has gotten far off track from what I believe the OP was after. I could discuss the needs for hunting and shoot down arguments against it from now until the second Tuesday of next week. But it's just like the gun issue.....in the end, those that are for it will be for it and those who are against it will be against it. It's an exercise in futility.

caitlyn -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:46:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver You can't divorce guns from the American myth. I'm curious as to what you see as "the American myth?" [;)]

juliaoceania -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 11:51:43 AM)
quote: Regardless, this has gotten far off track from what I believe the OP was after. I could discuss the needs for hunting and shoot down arguments against it from now until the second Tuesday of next week. But it's just like the gun issue.....in the end, those that are for it will be for it and those who are against it will be against it. It's an exercise in futility. I will only say this, you are exactly right, both sides will be for or against based upon their emotional reasons.

darkinshadows -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 12:25:27 PM)
I do not believe 100% it is anything to do with a fear of a person in the sense of what they may do to hurt a person physically. I think it is unfair to say that we are not trusted in the UK. I do not think that trust has anything to do with an issue like this. It is morality and the fact that many people and governments are both unable and incapable and unwanting in accepting liability or responsibility. Its nothing to do with trust. It's everything to do with power and control - and the fear of losing it. Peace and Rapture

Archer -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 1:49:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania But isn't being pro-gun based on personal feelings too? You know, I was just thinking about something in relation to this last post. 9 minors each day die because of gun deaths. Most of these deaths could be prevented with proper storage of guns. Perhaps there should be a criminal liablity for people who store their guns negligently. Perhaps the same laws that deal with reckless endangerment, negligent homocide, should apply. Perhaps people would be more careful if they thought they could be put in prison for failing to secure their weapons... just a thought. Thing is those laws do apply to every one of these cases, it is the lack of motivation of the prosecutor's office to file charges against the dead child's parents, for negligence in storage of firearms, that makes folks think these laws don't apply. The law is in place to cover the situation IF the prosecutor's office has the courage (or lack of compassion as many will see it) to file the charges.

juliaoceania -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 2:00:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania But isn't being pro-gun based on personal feelings too? You know, I was just thinking about something in relation to this last post. 9 minors each day die because of gun deaths. Most of these deaths could be prevented with proper storage of guns. Perhaps there should be a criminal liablity for people who store their guns negligently. Perhaps the same laws that deal with reckless endangerment, negligent homocide, should apply. Perhaps people would be more careful if they thought they could be put in prison for failing to secure their weapons... just a thought. Thing is those laws do apply to every one of these cases, it is the lack of motivation of the prosecutor's office to file charges against the dead child's parents, for negligence in storage of firearms, that makes folks think these laws don't apply. The law is in place to cover the situation IF the prosecutor's office has the courage (or lack of compassion as many will see it) to file the charges. I will research this. I have never heard of a case in which someone left their firearm accessible in their home in such a way that someone gained access to it and shot someonem and then being held criminally negligent. I mean, any case of this whatsoever. I can hardly believe there are not cases in which someone allowed access to their gun and the person took the gun and shot someone with it. I am not talking civil suits, I am talking criminal negligence. There have been kids that took their parents gun and committed crimes with that gun... shouldn't the owner of that gun have shown due diligence to make sure that did not happen? Like keeping their guns under lock and key.

kentaro1980 -> RE: not another US guns thread (5/3/2007 2:11:54 PM)
quote: but it says NOTHING about what THE PEOPLE can do, What about the Prohibition? Weren't THE PEOPLE(tm) told in the 18th Amendment that they cannot manufacture, sell or transport alcohol? As for the OP: there's no reason against it, under these parameters. And as far as i know, it is legal in Germany to own a firearm for sporting purposes with limitations.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875