Are you a gun controller ?

[Rajder]

I asked my daddy at ten years old if I could buy a rifle. He said no...I bought one anyway.

I realized many years later that I (after 1968) was STILL asking 'daddy' if I could buy a weapon......yeah, fella, crawling on your belly is what you do EVERY TIME you beg permission to buy another weapon. Really...does it REALLY make you 'feel like a man' to have some nameless, faceless 'whatever' on the other end of the phone pass judgement on whether you are a decent human being ?

You ought to take a few moments and educate yourself on the chart put out by JPFO DETAILING the millions of people killed by governments withing 50 years after they institute gun control...since you trust government more then you trust the thousands of 'psychos' you seem to surround yourself with.

Those 'psychos' are running about because of the failure of GOVERNMENT to take care of the problem...and INDIVIDUALS refusing to do what is necessary for the security of their families.

Oh...one more thing. You watch entirely too much TV. The old West was hardly the 'shoot 'em up' every day like you seem to believe. You stood FAR more chance of dying of lock-jaw then lead poisoning.

Man you reall need to calm down. I'd bet you have problems with your blood pressure because you seem like an angry person. Listen, if you really think our government is going to start killing millions of Americans then we are never really going to agree. I don't know where the "if it makes you feel like a man" thing came from but I'd suggest you act like an adult and stop resorting to name calling. I'm secure enough in my manhood and life that I don't really worry about being judged by your so called "nameless, faceless whatever". If you really think you are being judged or crawling on your belly every time you buy a gun then we just think differently, thats all. All I know is when I bought my guns that phone call that took like 30 seconds I didn't think I was being judged or crawling on my belly. Did that phone call effect my life any? No, so I don't really get your crawling on my belly argument but whatever.

And I never said that I wanted the government to completely control guns did I? I just said that I would like to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and sociopaths. Thats all. Obviously you are ok with that but the majority of America probably agrees with me and I don't really see anyone changing that law anytime soon so your probably just going to have to deal with it. Sitting here griping about it on a gun forum is about the same as pissing in the wind.

I never said I believed the old wild west movies and I don't think there are 1000's of psycho running around out there. I was just making a point. I was trying to have a civil conversation but that has been proven to me to be impossible. My point is that if we could have stopped even just one unecessary death by those "crawling on your belly" 30 second phone calls then I will gladly take that trade off because that one person could be a member of my or your family. If they start trying to take our guns away then I will stand with you on this. Until that point I think your making much ado about nothing.

You say that individuals are refusing to do what is necessary to protect their family? Well, I ask who made you the all knowing power on how individuals should protect their family? The fact is today if a law abiding citizen wants to own a gun to protect their family then they can without any real government control. If they don't want to own a gun its their choice. You act like everybody should be forced to own and carry a gun at all times.

If you really think some chart about other countries gun control applies to America then you think I need to educate myself and I think your crazy. I'm sure all those charts you speak of come from a completely unbiased source and are based on scientific research right? You sound like the type of person holed up in a shack somewhere and thinks the world and the government is out to get you. I bet you built a bunker and stocked it for Y2K also? I'd suggest calm down, go out enjoy the world because not everyone is bad, and realize that big brother isn't watching you. To me you haven't responded with any type of constructive comments to anything I've said, just name calling and agression, so I just assume that your ok with the uncessary deaths that would occur if we just gave guns to everybody like you say. Its obvious that we disagree on this issue and that is fine. Your entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine. But it is also obvious that this conversation is going nowhere so I am going to stop contributing because its getting the same results as pissing in the wind and I have better things to do than this. I sincerely hope you have a good day.

 

[Captain Mike]

OK, the pot has been stirred. My opinion is that the states should decide what they want for gun control, as far as it can be enacted without violating the 2nd amendment. If you don't like the gun laws in OK, then move to a place where people have less rights and the gooberment can take care of them. And as a side not, I have seen how well our gov. can "take care" of poeple while I was in their employ. Suffice it to say, I prefer to take care of myself...

 

[1shot(bob)]

Rajder, read my sig line. It pretty much sums up my thoughts on what you are saying.
Personally, I'm not willing to give up even a small portion of my rights to save even one person (not even if it's my wife or kids). With rights comes responsibility, and possibly some bad consequences, but it's much better than the alternative.

 

[Martialartsblackbelt]

bottom like is we are a FREE country. and there is a price for that freedom.

 

[MadDawg]

bottom 'like' is many talk in such extreme jingoism it warps rational thought. Those who are not as 'patriotic' as the poster are slaves, crawling on their belly, surrendering our children's freedoms...

Quoting the West as an example of how peaceful a well armed society can be is wrong. If you study our western history many towns had firearm ordinances prohibiting the carry of firearms within town limits.

They didnt do it because the DNC told them too. They didnt do it because the Marshal was a bleeding heart liberal.

It would be helpful to the controller debate if a study of our history is made before making claims about how it really was.

 

[vvvvvvv]

If you study our western history many towns had firearm ordinances prohibiting the carry of firearms within town limits.

And that's why there were so many "problems"....

 

[marvinvwinkle]

bottom 'like' is many talk in such extreme jingoism it warps rational thought. Those who are not as 'patriotic' as the poster are slaves, crawling on their belly, surrendering our children's freedoms...

Quoting the West as an example of how peaceful a well armed society can be is wrong. If you study our western history many towns had firearm ordinances prohibiting the carry of firearms within town limits.

They didnt do it because the DNC told them too. They didnt do it because the Marshal was a bleeding heart liberal.

It would be helpful to the controller debate if a study of our history is made before making claims about how it really was.

Okay, here you go again. If it wasn't those two what was the reason for gun control within western town limits? I know do you? And if you read history there weren't that many with those limits. Mostly cow towns.

You aren't the only one that reads or has read history, stop using that challenge unless you are willing to back it up.

 

[MadDawg]

Laffin-
Oh I read history and the 'cowtown' was most any town out west at one time or another. Simple and somewhat disturbing fact was way before any interweb ranting most towns out west have a period of history where the citizens of that town voted an ordinance to ban public carry of firearms. It wasnt altered until the town grew more stable and mature. Some never did and became ghost towns.

During the volatile period between tent city to bricked buildings these towns felt the need to restrict firearms for the common good, not carry bigger and badder weapons.

As much as a few would love to embrace the western myths, facts are facts.

The old saw about guns make polite societies is false. Polite people make polite societies.

Guns are just tools, remember that what we tell the gungrabbers.

 

[perfor8]

Why do you keep arguing about how to interpret the 2nd amendment?

If they erase it tomorrow will you assume you no longer have the right to own weapons? If you stand on the 2nd amendment you'll fall when it's taken from you.

If the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights had never existed, I would claim the right to own weapons.

The right does not hinge on the law. The law honors the right.

Having the right codified into law is a luxury afforded to us by brave warriors.

 

[haglered]

Let's play devil's advocate for a moment....

The founders of this nation lived in a world where the gun had the use of hunting to provide food as well as a weapon of massed men fighting together against a common enemy. They could not forsee the advent of automatic weapons or other weapons that could kill a lot of people in a hurry in the hands of a derranged criminal.

I don't think they were worried about individuals having the firepower to hold off a group of constables with firepower that could wreck havoc on a lot of people at once.

That being said. I think they were more concerned with the possiblility that some despot could take guns away from the populace. The guns they had in mind are those which are used by men who are called out to fight shoulder to shoulder with their neighbors.

I think the modern equivalent would be the average A/R. Except we don't come out to fight shoulder to shoulder with our neighbors. We have a professional standing army with much more dangerous arms than most of us average men could afford. (think about some of the hardware used by the military today)

There is no way a group of average men armed with guns and weapons they could get thier hands on could stand against a professional standing army. Not just for training but because they simply don't have the firepower to go up against what millions of tax dollars can afford.

Still an armed populace is an empowered populace who does not have to be afraid of the police forces of their local government when that government breaks the laws and tries to take away rights when they have no just reason to do so.

An unarmed populace is a powerless populace. Having guns gives them power. Even if they could not take on the armed forces; in sufficient numbers, they could stand up and make it impossible for a despot to do what he/she wants.

There can be no real line at which the government can say "this weapon is too much for the people to have access to." Yet, they do so.

This is wrong because the principal given in the constitutino is that arms equal to military class weapons are what the populace has the right to keep and bear.