Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I can't argue with that, nothing anyone says is going to change anyones mind. I was just pondering if anyone had an answer to the question I posed which was not intended maliciously although perhaps it came across that way, but a genuine question and viewpoint I hold.
In regards to personal safety, well a gun is probably the most effective killing device devised by man, and certainly one of the more user friendly devices.
Well, depending on the gun that is, admittedly.
It would, for people like me who like to see the old guns fired at ranges, also be a shame if guns were completely banned in America because it would end the nice youtube vids from the professionals who explain the various ins and outs of the gun in question (hickok45 for example).
Of course, a gun is only as safe as the person holding it. Can't argue with that either, guns don't fire themselves...well, not yet anyway.
So no, I don't argue for the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment, that would be daft and cause a civil war, but I do agree that some legal means are needed to drill proper gun safety into the idiots who don't practice it. Target identification should be something that's also looked at, but to be fair in the heat of the moment it's pretty hard to be sure so there's that.
I don't have the answers, that's down to Americans, and I wish them well with it, in the meantime us Europeans will probably continue to be baffled by it, because of the culture difference. That is just how it is.

Not sure of your question, but gun ownership was never a legal right given by the 2nd amend. As I said earlier, you saw no congressman in the 1700's shouting he was gonna pass a law to make guns legal. The crowd would've yelled "since when were they illegal" It has been a natural common law right since guns were invented. You guys across the seas gave away your gun rights when you defined gun rights as legal rights, thus giving your govts the right to make them illegal. Gun right advocates in America see the right to hunt for food and self defense a natural common right. The 2nd amend doesn't deny the natural right of gun ownership, just extends it's use in regards to militia use...

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Time has passed. The incident thoroughly investigated and relayed to the news hounds.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boy...ket/ar-BBhmnXx


I don't put much stock in early news reports on these types of stories.
They lack too many intimate details. So, everyone reads what is just a headline for an incomplete news report and the rest is left to the imagination. It's no wonder that I see so many snap judgement wrong opinions posted.

She had a purse designed to conceal her firearm. Nice, but irrelevant.
She still did NOT secure it in a manner that would prevent a child from gaining access to it. Thus, I still fault her for the incident. At NO time should a child have access to a firearm (loaded or not) without direct and intentional adult supervision.

She turned away from an unsecured handgun that her child could get to so that she could look at clothes. Its a tragedy no doubt, but one that could have been avoided had she been focused on safety while carrying.

After my last post, I went out to help my Angel look for a handgun that fits her. The local stores were closed but we still stopped a couple of other places (Wal-Mart and Dicks Sporting Goods). I chose to carry, got the usual double take looks, but nothing more which is as it should be. I noticed the looks because anytime I carry - I take the responsibility of carrying seriously. Situational awareness is key - and the woman who was killed didn't pay enough attention to her surroundings or the safety of her firearm and child. Sad - but it rests on her.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

She turned away from an unsecured handgun that her child could get to so that she could look at clothes. Its a tragedy no doubt, but one that could have been avoided had she been focused on safety while carrying.

Thats really all there is to it.

[Jeff-Groves]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Thats really all there is to it.

But this is General Topics so Aliens and all sorts of stuff is expected.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Same rubbish again, you still can't grasp the simple fact that your laws in the 1700s were based on the same laws you say restricted their use in other countries.
Its a wonder since your own link proved your claims to be incorrect that you still trot out the same baseless claims.

Is there a topic you agree with that I could disagree with just to get you to change your mind....

The usual make up what I said to a link that you said that i said that I never said, but that you made up and said I said...

As long as you keep you post under a few sentences I'll read em....

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The usual make up what I said to a link that you said that i said that I never said, but that you made up and said I said...

That hurt my head. Mainly because its so true of the style of "debate" some use. If they can't use (or deal with) facts, they just fabricate stuff....

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Not sure of your question, but gun ownership was never a legal right given by the 2nd amend. As I said earlier, you saw no congressman in the 1700's shouting he was gonna pass a law to make guns legal. The crowd would've yelled "since when were they illegal" It has been a natural common law right since guns were invented. You guys across the seas gave away your gun rights when you defined gun rights as legal rights, thus giving your govts the right to make them illegal. Gun right advocates in America see the right to hunt for food and self defense a natural common right. The 2nd amend doesn't deny the natural right of gun ownership, just extends it's use in regards to militia use...

Yes but the right is not without limit, that's sort of what I was aiming at, for example you can't purchase armour-piercing ammunition or explosive rounds (at least according to wikipedia you can't), so perhaps introduce a law that...I don't know, maybe that any gun owner has to attend a gun safety class every six months or risk a fine and/or imprisonment? Something like that, to encourage people to actually use firearm safety so that their mentally unstable teenager is not able to access their firearm and use it on a rampage. That would perhaps be a start.

By the way, in regards to weapons ownership, the 2nd Amendment is in fact based on the English Bill of Rights of 1689:

Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) ... by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) ... thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) ... That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

However, after the Jacobite rebellions in the 1700s, harsh disarming laws were imposed on Scotland and the in the early 1800s, further firearms laws were put in place because of returning soldiers from the Napoleonic wars were becoming a nuisance in the countryside by using their firearms for banditry. Then again after the First World War, further legislation was brought in to control the amount of firearms being brought back from the war, and then after that laws were generally (except for the 1968 Firearms Act) only brought in after incidents such as Hungerford and Dunblane.
Has it worked? Well the number of mass shooting sprees has been pretty low, just two in my lifetime (Dunblame and the Cumbria sprees) but gun crime has been fairly fluctuating but generally a lot lower than in comparison to the US, even if you scale the populations to equal measure.
Now knives, that's a different story.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

But this is General Topics so Aliens and all sorts of stuff is expected.

Now what about Alien firearms?



Can't go wrong with the old disruptor pistol, smooth, sleek and deadly.

[ikalugin]

Well I wish US would pass a law allowing militia men to own heavy weapons.

This would certainly go with the spirit and the letter of the 2nd amendment.

And i think this would be my last contribution to this special Olympics thread.

[MH]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Thats really all there is to it.

Yes... also people who go about their daily lives and think that what is good for SEALS is good for them.
It is funny how people argue about timing yet I wonder how many have actually trained shooting under pressure.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Yes but the right is not without limit, that's sort of what I was aiming at, for example you can't purchase armour-piercing ammunition or explosive rounds (at least according to wikipedia you can't), sG]

And that' the argument that goes on forever. I agree because gun rights are a for granted right, that govts elected by the people have the right to set limits. They certainly have the right to regulate military type weaponry, they basically did that with militias as they progressed, because the natural common right was basically hunting and self defense. They have the right to outlaw military weaponry to the general public. We have have done much of this in the US. The problem comes when does a military use and public use come close together, such as large clips or drums... There has to be a balance and that's what we in America fight about....

The problem comes when those against guns totally argue the 2nd is in regards to militias/armies only...

Also, you can't compare the complex culture of America to Europe for statistics

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

That hurt my head. Mainly because its so true of the style of "debate" some use. If they can't use (or deal with) facts, they just fabricate stuff....

well, we all know some here are basic trolls and mute debaters....just argue for the sake of distance and irritation...

but they can be mildly entertaining for a few post...

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by August

That's how I carry my M1911. I just can't abide the thought of carrying with a cocked hammer, even on a gun that has a double safety.

I used to carry my .45 with one in the chamber all the time. One day, I don't why maybe I was in a rush, I went out and didn't load one in. Weird because that was the first and only time anyone ever grabbed my side arm in an attempt to take it from me. Scared the poop out of me.

eventually we transitioned the Beretta M9 I thought it was a much safer weapon to carry and designed to safely carry one in the chamber.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

As far as I recall cybermat was the only person who said on this forum they were totally against guns.
He changed his mind after the simple 3 letter question of "why?"

and your point.....

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There you have it Oberon.
protestants catholics and dissenters, taxpayers and the poor, landowners and tenants, rebels and loyalists, freeman and bondsmen, white Christian male folks and errrrr....others....loads of it, its all in Armiteads link.
No wonder he had trouble finding a single example which would support his initial claim.
Restrictions applied before the revolution, restrictions applied during the revolution and restrictions applied after the revolution.

But you must understand. America swapped a bunch of idiots in Westminster for a bunch of idiots in Washington through armed rebellion.
They have this gun thing which is largely based on myth.
Ireland swapped a bunch of idiots in Westminster for a bunch of idiots in Dublin through armed rebellion, they don't have this gun myth.

I never said restrictions weren't applied, such as your fowling gun comment. I said numerous states dealt with them differently. They wanted men with muskets, not fowling pieces or most rifles. What the govt didn't regulate was what you could own, but they did try to regulate what they wanted you to bring to the militia....learn the difference....Fact is many still showed up with fowling pieces and rifles....This only became a problem as technology advanced, mobsters, etc....

Americans maintained their natural right for guns, regardless of what you peans do across the seas....