|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Dec 9, 2005 20:49:01 GMT -8
I was reading a discussion in the OIF forum in THC and I thought I'd bring this up over here.
Most of us can agree that a person is entittled to own a gun for home protection. Is there an area where we should draw the line though?
For most people a 9mm or Glock should be sufficiant for what they can reasonably encounter. Should we put restrictions on owning of guns like a 50 cal. rifle, machine guns, and fully automatic weapons?
If people should be allowed to own these weapons, should they be allowed to apply for permission to carry them in public consealed?
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Dec 11, 2005 22:46:58 GMT -8
Owning weapons isn't just about stopping an intruder.
It's also about preventing government tyranny. What is a Glock gonna do against soldiers carrying M16s? Nothing.
America might be a Republic today but people should not take for granted what we have. Democracies have slipped into Fascism before and America is not exempt. Revolutionary France, the beacon of democracy and liberty, fell back into tyrannical rule (e.g. Napoleon and later Napoleon III) so we shouldn't think for a second that that can't happen in America as well.
People take their liberty for granted and they believe that it will always be there. As Ronald Reagan said (I hope I don't get this wrong), "Liberty is always one generation away from extinction." The biggest threat to our liberty comes not from Al-Queda, the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation or any outside factor. It comes from our own government and it is our responsibility to defend the Constitution at all costs.
The people should be allowed to have rifles (semi-automatic), pistols, shotguns, sub-machine guns and machine guns. I think anything past that might be going too far.
As for carrying in public.....a pistol is more than enough. You do not need a shotgun or SMG to stop some robber using a Glock.
|
|
|
|
Post by sneegro9783 on Dec 16, 2005 5:46:31 GMT -8
It's also about preventing government tyranny. What is a Glock gonna do against soldiers carrying M16s? Nothing. Depends on how good you are with it....  |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Dec 16, 2005 11:09:29 GMT -8
It is our Constitutional right. However, it appears that too many gun owners do not know how and when to use it. In addition, little coverage is given to the consequences to using it. I do not know of a single case of a person drawing his weapon on an intruder. In fact, I have known only one person in my life that was attacked in her home. She had no warning and was asleep on the couch. What good did the guns that her husband owned do for her when she was home alone and away from the weapons? The incident happened in 1968 and she now lives alone and does not own a weapon.
Secondly, I do know of one case here in Kansas City where a man shot an intruder who was not armed. That man was charged with manslaughter and had to spend tens of thousands of dollars to keep out of jail. He later lost a wrongful death suit from teen's mother.
The ownership of a weapon is a right; however, there are too many stupid arrogant people (across all classes and races) who see it as a right of passage. Too many of these people draw their weapon at the wrong time and in the wrong place.
To take a life, in time of war or in self-defense is something that will haunt a normal person for life.
I believe that every one who purchases a weapon must complete intensive weapons handling training course. More than just safe handling and possible target shooting. It must include a review of criminal and civil laws with examples of correct and incorrect uses and the consequeces of each.
I have owned several guns, all of which were stolen during a break-in 1986. My wife was out with the boys and returned to find the two teens in our home. She ran next door with the kids while the burglars dashed out the back into their car "loaded" with over $8000 of our stuff. I have not purchased a weapon since.
Sorry for the dissertation.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 16, 2005 12:34:10 GMT -8
I have never owned a firearm and I do not think I ever will. I'm older now more mature and no longer drink but am very glad I never did own one. It is possible I would have hurt myself or even worse someone else before now. In my younger years I was held at gun point a couple of times and was present at a domestic dispute involving a firearm. It was then and there I decided I did not want to have any around. I have been to the range and have fired several different weapons and enjoyed it immensely. I do not begrudge others the right to own a firearm. It just isn't for me. Background checks and licensing seems reasonable to me. The idea that you could outlaw firearm ownership in this country is an absurd notion. Considering the number of firearms currently in circulation it would take several generations before you could even make a dent not very realistic.
Now here is where I will piss off all my conservative friends. The constitution protects the right of individuals to bear arms for the maintenance of a well regulated militia not so that some red neck wing nut can own a 50 cal.
Not that I have anything against red neck wing nuts some of my best freinds are red neck wing nuts.
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Dec 16, 2005 17:44:26 GMT -8
"Owning weapons isn't just about stopping an intruder. It's also about preventing government tyranny. What is a Glock gonna do against soldiers carrying M16s? Nothing."
Of greater concern to me is the breakdown of civil order following a natural disaster ( I live 7 miles from the San Andreas) or major terrorist attack. There are large numbers of illegal aliens in my locale because of the agriculture in the area. While most of them are honest, I wouldn't count on them staying that way if they were cut off from work and Govt. assistance. There's also a local Latino gang.
If they take to marauding, they'll be ill advised to do it my neighborhood.
Truth is, New Orleans scared the hell out of me.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Dec 17, 2005 8:27:31 GMT -8
Exactly 101 - Americans forget that we all have the right to protect ourselves. You don't need to wait on the government to protect your life because everyone has that right.
Have guns been wrongly used in the past? Sure - but so have many things. That doesn't outweigh the fact that I have the right to defend my home and property. They belong to me and not the government.
Furthermore, the government does not have a divine right to exist. The government's right to exist only comes from the consent of the people. Should we remove that consent for any reason, we might have to forcefully dissolve our own government. These are all hypotheticals of course (one that I hope never happens) but I would not hesitate to attack my own government, should it become tyrannical.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 17, 2005 16:22:29 GMT -8
Would someone point out to me where in the 2nd amendment to the constitution the right to own a firearm in order to prevent governmental tyranny is? Sorry it just ain't there. Add to that the founding fathers would have been horrified to hear you suggest it was. Consent of the governed comes from the means of selecting the government through a popular vote. Not from the threat of an armed insurrection.
|
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Dec 17, 2005 17:46:47 GMT -8
"Owning weapons isn't just about stopping an intruder. It's also about preventing government tyranny. What is a Glock gonna do against soldiers carrying M16s? Nothing." Of greater concern to me is the breakdown of civil order following a natural disaster ( I live 7 miles from the San Andreas) or major terrorist attack. There are large numbers of illegal aliens in my locale because of the agriculture in the area. While most of them are honest, I wouldn't count on them staying that way if they were cut off from work and Govt. assistance. There's also a local Latino gang. If they take to marauding, they'll be ill advised to do it my neighborhood. Truth is, New Orleans scared the hell out of me. I agree with you entirely 101. Guns need to be retained to ensure the protection of one's family in all possible incidences. Katrina should have highlighted this for many Americans, but I think they were too busy trying to tie the blame to Bush. |
|
|
|
Post by Sailor on Dec 17, 2005 18:33:23 GMT -8
Count me in BB and Rex. I live in the East Coast branch of Hurricane Alley and should it become necessary to evacuate the 7 cities here in Hampton Roads civil order could break down quickly.
New Orleans opened a lot of eyes around here for that reason as we looked around and saw just how FEW real evacuation routes there are out of here. Five of our cities, including the largest - Virginia Beach lie on the "South Side" and have only 2 REAL routes out, and neither of those is an Interstate highway. Both run west and link to I-95 between Richmond and the North Carolina line.
The ONLY Interstate in and out of the south side runs through a bridge and tunnel arrangement that limits traffic from the southside to 2 lanes in each direction, and even that just dumps into an already overloaded (on good days) 4 lane freeway serving Hampton, Newport News and Williamsburg that narrows to 2 lanes between Williamsburg and Richmond.
Running south is no good, that direction is likely to take you into the teeth of the storm if it first touchs land in North Carolina.
A lot of us figure we would have to take our chances and ride the storm out at home. We'd likely survive, but we wouldn't be liking it. Like New Orleans civil order would disappear like a soap bubble under those conditions.
That's why I include the artillery in any "bugout" or survival plans ... just in case, but pray they aren't needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 17, 2005 19:21:14 GMT -8
I have a great deal of respect for you all but your gonna hafta count me out. Not gonna support an armed insurrection or any one who does.
|
|
|
|
Post by FightingFalcon on Dec 18, 2005 1:24:49 GMT -8
Would someone point out to me where in the 2nd amendment to the constitution the right to own a firearm in order to prevent governmental tyranny is? Sorry it just ain't there. Add to that the founding fathers would have been horrified to hear you suggest it was. Consent of the governed comes from the means of selecting the government through a popular vote. Not from the threat of an armed insurrection. How do you think this country was founded? An armed insurrection against a tyrannical government.... The Founding Fathers didn't have to put that right in the Constitution because it is assumed. The Constitution was a document stipulating the limitations of the rights of the federal government - not of the people. The government derives all of its power (even its right to exist) from the people. The people, in turn, derive all of their power from God. Therefore, something that the Cosntitution did not strictly prohibit, it allows. If the federal government does not strictly prohibit something, we must assume that it is allowed because our rights come from God. The Founding Fathers would be horrified to think that we had the right to own guns? How about this quote from Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry. Or this one from Thomas Jefferson: "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing" Thomas Jefferson Or this one from George Washington: "Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master." - George Washington And yet one more from TJ: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson ----------------------------- See what I mean? The Founding Fathers knew all too wel about how easily a government could become tyrannical. It is up to us, the people, to prevent that from happening. Should it happen, it becomes our obligation to dissolve that government. Any people that do not have the right to bear arms have already become slaves to their government. Why do you think every tyrannical government in the history of mankind has forbidden private ownership of guns? |
|
|
|
Post by dustdevil28 on Dec 18, 2005 4:11:13 GMT -8
James,
You've made some great points. A responsible citizen should be prepared to protect themselves from all enemys foreign and domestic.
I worry about some people though who buy so many guns and take little precaution to locking them up or otherwise securing it.
For immediate home defense I'd think a semi-automatic pistol or shotgun would work just fine. I think any other scenario such as a break down in civil order would give one time to prepare.
|
|
|
|
Post by MrDoublel on Dec 18, 2005 4:36:07 GMT -8
Hey FF, In order for a tyranical government to exist it has to have control of the military. All members of the US Armed Forces swear to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foriegn AND domestic. Also all are trained in their rights when it comes to unlawfull orders. It would be difficult in the extreem for a dictatorial regime to gain power in the US.
As for gun ownership, it's a constitutional right. Period. Although I do question the need to own 82 handguns, unless they are all antiques or rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by cameron on Dec 18, 2005 7:12:33 GMT -8
How do you think this country was founded? An armed insurrection against a tyrannical government....
That's right but what was it that made it tyrannical?
Did they not attempt to set up a government that would not be able to become a tyranny? Everyone has a responsibility to protect home and hearth as well as to stand up to tyranny, that is not what I dispute. Under our form of government the time to stand up to tyranny is before the only remedy is an armed insurrection. At that point the founding fathers experiment in democracy will have proved to have been a failure. Since I will never be willing to accept that, I will never support an armed insurrection no matter how sympathetic I might be to the grievances of those that do.
The Founding Fathers didn't have to put that right in the Constitution because it is assumed. The Constitution was a document stipulating the limitations of the rights of the federal government - not of the people.
Ah but they did put it in the Constitution in order to maintain a well regulated militia. Why even do that if it was assumed?
The government derives all of its power (even its right to exist) from the people. The people, in turn, derive all of their power from God. Therefore, something that the Constitution did not strictly prohibit, it allows. If the federal government does not strictly prohibit something, we must assume that it is allowed because our rights come from God.
Not much difference in opinion between us there.
The Founding Fathers would be horrified to think that we had the right to own guns?
No that's not what I asserted. What I asserted is that they would have been horrified by the idea that the right to own and bear arms would be for the purpose to threaten the government with an armed insurrection in order to protect our individual and collective rights. They set up the form and style of our Republic to prevent that from becoming necessary. If it does become necessary then the Republic they set up has failed.
How about this quote from Patrick Henry:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." -Patrick Henry.
I disagree with you and Patrick
Or this one from Thomas Jefferson:
"A little rebellion now and then is a good thing" Thomas Jefferson
I think I can agree with that from Thomas it is in the interpretation.
Or this one from George Washington:
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master." - George Washington
This one from George Washington I agree with 100%. That is what government is any government: force or the threat of force. That is the very essence of any government. It is from where the government derives the authority to wield the sword that makes a government legitimate or illegitimate
And yet one more from TJ:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson
This is not the only thing TJ and I disagree over.
-----------------------------
See what I mean? The Founding Fathers knew all too wel about how easily a government could become tyrannical. It is up to us, the people, to prevent that from happening. Should it happen, it becomes our obligation to dissolve that government.
If we the people wait until the only remedy is an armed insurrection then the Republic is already lost. Since I do not think it is or that we can not remedy the governments usurpation of our rights short of an armed insurrection you will find me willing to take up arms against you in support of the current Republic. We are talking civil war here and I will not support you. No matter how sympathetic I might be to your cause I will not support an armed insurrection and will in fact oppose it. This is coming from a conservative with strong libertarian leanings who thinks the current Republic has already usurped powers not given it by the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling on the law of eminent domain being only the most recent outrage.
Any people that do not have the right to bear arms have already become slaves to their government. Why do you think every tyrannical government in the history of mankind has forbidden private ownership of guns?
That is your opinion and I do not share it.
PS I still luv ya.
|
|
