Thread: gun control

Tweet

[QUOTE=Bob Parmenter;347489]We have sunk to such a depth that the restatement of the obvious has become the first duty of intelligent men.

-- George Orwell, 1939

I find some delicious irony in that being a 70 year old quote. The human condition continues.

In this case the obvious is that laws don't necessarily stop bad behavior, their enforcement merely attempts to maintain civil harmony. In each of the sad circumstances that Dave's cut and pastes points out a fundamental and consistent law dating back millenia was violated: Thou shalt not kill.

Likewise, licensing, training and government control don't guarantee a positive outcome. If preventing death is the primary objective then we should ban automobiles, if banning inanimate objects is considered effective. QUOTE]


The Orwell quote is indeed relavant, and I'm not one of the one's who want guns banned. Guns are fine when they are in the hands of a mentally stable, intelligent, and trained user...

If mandatory licensing similar to the requirements for a driver's license, and mandatory training much like driver's education were required would it really be that big of an infringement on anyone's rights???

Nothing will guarantee a 100% positive outcome, and certainly banning inanimate objects wouldn't be an acceptable answer... But if licensing, training, and monitoring gun owners were to prevent just some of these deaths wouldn't it be a positive move??

To save even one death of an innocent person, especially if it were a friend or family member, would to me and to many be good enough reason to implement at least some requirements....

After all, does the 2nd Amendment really trump the law of "Thou Shalt not Kill"? As with many arguments, common sense would indicate that there is a common ground and a point of comprimise on the issue of gun control. As with many other issues, perhaps it's time we ignored the extremists at either end of the spectrum, and people with common sense were to seek a comprimise someplace in the middle????

Ya know Davey, there are a lot of folks that don't realize you and I have been "butting heads" like this for years.

Good thing for you I don't charge you for the amount of effort I have to put in to getting you to show your more moderate side!

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

After all, does the 2nd Amendment really trump the law of "Thou Shalt not Kill"? As with many arguments, common sense would indicate that there is a common ground and a point of comprimise on the issue of gun control. As with many other issues, perhaps it's time we ignored the extremists at either end of the spectrum, and people with common sense were to seek a comprimise someplace in the middle????

Unfortunately getting to the "middle ground" is more difficult for the more conservative types. The national narrative is more under the control of the left extreme. I suspect it was much easier for you to find those articles to cut and paste than it would be for someone who wanted to counter them by accessing the same forms of "popular" media. It takes more effort and passion to muster a comprehensive retort to the mass media echo chamber.

Dave wrote:

After all, does the 2nd Amendment really trump the law of "Thou Shalt not Kill"? As with many arguments, common sense would indicate that there is a common ground and a point of comprimise on the issue of gun control. As with many other issues, perhaps it's time we ignored the extremists at either end of the spectrum, and people with common sense were to seek a comprimise someplace in the middle????

As much as I am a proponent of gun rights, I agree that the 2nd does not trump the biblical law of "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Of course I am not going to get into the issue of whether the bible is truth or fiction or a little of both.

But we (the USA and other civilized countries) have laws on our books that make it illegal to kill (in most instances) regardless, if you use a firearm or the jaw bone of an ass (the four legged kind ). Guns are really not the problem, the problems is with who's holding the gun. I own a number of guns, yet excluding military service, I have never killed anyone nor do I have the desire to (although there have been fleeting moments that the thought may have crossed my mind).

I don't know how we go about doing it, but the issue to be resolved is how to keep the firearms out of the hands of those who have no remorse and who would feel little or no concern about taking the life of another human being. That, in itself, is the problem.

Take all the guns away, and I guarantee you there will be people bludgeoned to death with any available device including motor vehicles, baseball bats, knives, pokers, golf clubs, hockey sticks, tire irons, and the jaw bone of an ass. The gun is just a convenient tool. And in the hands of the wrong person, it's a problem.

I have found no way of solving this problem to the satisfaction of everyone. Not sure that it can be, or will ever be. But it is worth solving.

The Graham example is not necessarily a good one for your side either. Mass murder of one's own family is not, unfortunately, infrequent. Males tend to use weapons, however, women far too often kill their young, but tend toward more "natural" methods such as drowning. Read some Ann Rule, for instance about the woman in Or. who tossed her kids off a bridge. Or Andrea Yates in Tx who drowned her kids. Or the gal down south who pushed her car into the reservoir with the kids in it. Poor line of reasoning for attacking guns.

As for Greenwood, is that this year's date for the car show? I don't have the calendar with me down here. I used to go every year when we lived in Magnolia, (if you look in my gallery the '72 Chev pu and '55 Chev were in front of one of the beauty shops on the ave.) but haven't been to it since about 2002 or 3. If I do go this year I'll be there with a grey '36 Ford 3 window coupe. If we meet up I promise not to shoot you.

Your question, re; "... does the NRA really think that banning AK47's would make it hard to hunt deer?" I've hunted most of my adult life and have never seen or heard of anyone deer hunting with an AK-47. There are too many other choices that are far superior to the AK.

Private ownership of fully automatic AK-pattern rifles is strictly regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ceased the import of foreign-manufactured fully automatic firearms for civilian sales and possession.

In 1986, an amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act stopped all future domestic manufacturing of fully automatic weapons for civilian use (non-military/non-law-enforcement). Fully automatic weapons are still manufactured in the US for military and law enforcement use however; automatic firearms manufactured domestically prior to 1986 or imported prior to 1968 may be transferred between civilians in accordance with federal and state law.

Semi-automatic AK-type rifles, are legal and obtainable in most states of the United States, however they may or may not be legal to own or possess depending on state, county, city, and local laws and ordinances. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban specifically banned the AK-47 by name, and many other such weapons (including obvious clones of AK-47's) manufactured after 1994 had to be modified to the letter of the law (removal of barrel threading, bayonet lug and folding stock). This ban expired in 2004, making all domestically produced semi-automatic AK-47s legal. The import of AK pattern rifles is still banned. However, certain states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have specific restrictions which effectively ban new purchases of many semi-automatic rifles, with some mentioning AK-pattern firearms by name.

The NRA has never condoned nor have they endorsed ownership of fully automatic weapons (AK-47 or otherwise) except by individuals possessing the proper federal credentials. The NRA is the major proponent of gun safety and education in this country. Over 55,000 NRA Certified Instructors now train about 750,000 gun owners a year.

The NRA does not even suggest that the AK-47 would be a good deer hunting rifle.

The AK-47 uses 7.62x39mm, a .30-caliber round producing about 1,500 ft./lbs. of energy at the muzzle, which is suitable for deer hunting at close range. This round is less powerful than all other .30 calibers commonly used for hunting. Specifically:
.30-30 Winchester, 1,900 ft./lbs.
.308 Winchester, 2,650 ft./lbs.
.30-’06 Springfield, 2,800 ft./lbs.
.300 Winchester Magnum, 3,600 ft./lbs.
.300 Weatherby Magnum, 4,200 ft./lbs.

In about the past 10 years I have built new legal frames for different companies in USA that makes & sell AK-47's! Because USA made AK's are legal to sell in the USA! So much for your gun laws!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't keep locks on your guns, your kids will play with them. You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make them drink it! (free gun locks) It's your job to make them drink! Not mine or the goverments!!!!

Also, if you use a bat on an unarmed person, it's the same if you use a gun, if you use a knive on an unarmed person, it's he same if you used a gun. So why stand close enough to find out which they brought with them? If I standing that close, I know my barrel is in their mouth, till the cops come!

If everyone was able to carried a gun, do you think as many idit's would just start shooting! and if they did some one will take them out before 5-10-15-20 helpless people were shoot by them! I know I would!!!!!!! But then again...I hit my target without thinking about it. close don't count.

Pat

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

Ya know Davey, there are a lot of folks that don't realize you and I have been "butting heads" like this for years.

Good thing for you I don't charge you for the amount of effort I have to put in to getting you to show your more moderate side!

Take it easy there Uncle Bob!!! I've got my reputation to consider!!!!



Unfortunately getting to the "middle ground" is more difficult for the more conservative types. The national narrative is more under the control of the left extreme. I suspect it was much easier for you to find those articles to cut and paste than it would be for someone who wanted to counter them by accessing the same forms of "popular" media. It takes more effort and passion to muster a comprehensive retort to the mass media echo chamber.

So, next time I hear someone described as a "staunch conservative" I could assume they mean bullheaded and unyielding?????

I'll never understand what's wrong with the middle ground... Not just on gun control but on so many, many issues it would seem a bit more comprimising and a lot less name calling and finger pointing would accomplish so much more.... Has the art of negotiation and comprimise completely given way to "You're wrong, I'm right"??? Maybe we could make resolving issues kind of like Olympic judging where they throw out the low score and high score and use the "opinions" in the middle????

In the gun control debate, and for that matter most all political debate, it would seem to me that we put for too much emphasis on the extreme left and the extreme right that the majority of folks who are somewhere in the middle end up with no voice in the proceedings at all.... For this we can thank the media as they strive for sensationalism by only talking up the extremes. I guess Joe Average doesn't make good news copy, does he??? Remember when journalism was who, what, when, where, and why and we were left to make up our own minds on an issue???? Now we are force fed what the media sees as right and wrong and told what to think and what to say.....the worst part is, so many folks seem to buy into the media hype of extremes, and perhaps ignore their own judgement......

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

So, next time I hear someone described as a "staunch conservative" I could assume they mean bullheaded and unyielding?????
......

Your comment could very well describe yourself......Your very first comment on this subject was....

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

What is the fascination with guns lately, anyway???? Home defense my butt!!!! Should be an intelligence test to make sure the person buying the gun is smarter then gun!!!! What a bunch of crap......

I have read this entire thread from the start and it would seem that almost all who posted (including me) have agreed with your first statement. But you have been going on and on about it for 8 pages now!!.....sounds kinda Bullheaded and unyielding to me.......

Originally Posted by T42

Your comment could very well describe yourself......Your very first comment on this subject was....



I have read this entire thread from the start and it would seem that almost all who posted (including me) have agreed with your first statement. But you have been going on and on about it for 8 pages now!!.....sounds kinda Bullheaded and unyielding to me.......

Ok, fine. Nothing more for me to say on the subject, I guess.... After all, it is a dissenting opinion.... I'm so sorry to be the only one who to you appears bullheaded and unyeilding......

PS--That comment on bullheaded and unyielding was to Bob, and it was followed by a few winks and smiles.... Bob and I have been exchanging jabs for quite some time on this forum on many different issues. Sorry you take such offense to it.

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

Ok, fine. Nothing more for me to say on the subject, I guess.... After all, it is a dissenting opinion.... I'm so sorry to be the only one who to you appears bullheaded and unyeilding......

PS--That comment on bullheaded and unyielding was to Bob, and it was followed by a few winks and smiles.... Bob and I have been exchanging jabs for quite some time on this forum on many different issues. Sorry you take such offense to it.

No.....its not a dissenting opinion. As I said, most all of us agree with you that to own a gun, one should be mentally stable and well versed in its use and handling. Its the banning talk that gets everybody fired up.

I also realized that you were poking fun at Bob.....As I was doing to you.

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

So, next time I hear someone described as a "staunch conservative" I could assume they mean bullheaded and unyielding?????
......

You continue to prove my point, thank you. "Staunch conservative", as a phrase, is similar to "radical right wing". The self described "unbiased" media majority (and those who sympathize with them) will toss those kinds of phrases around with abandon, yet NEVER does it occur to them to say such things as "stauch Liberal" or "radical left wing". To them there could never be a Liberal idea that is overbearing, or a left wing idea that is too radical. Evidence of the dumbing down (or dishonesty in some cases) of defining the "middle ground". As for "bullheaded" and "unyielding" I refer you to my earlier quotation of T. Jefferson; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."