SURVEY: Gun Control -- Is it time to curtail gun ownership in the US?

[smotherb]

3 hours ago, pegman said:

Machine guns are banned so I guess that makes you full of BS.

Machine guns are not banned all over the US and I did not even mention machine guns;so it appears the s**t is all over you.

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, smotherb said:

 

The fact that I own forty guns is my right as an America; they are all legal and I hold a concealed weapons permit. I am not sure what it says to you, but I am sure I do not care. Several of those guns are from my grandfathers, some from my father, some from my time in Vietnam, some I bought to use for sport or just to collect. I have a 107 acre mountain top boundary of land which has bear, deer, raccoon, rabbit, turkey, duck and quail and there are five public hunting and fishing areas within a fifteen mile radius of my farm. Do you suggest I use the same gun to shoot the bear and the quail, or the deer and the rabbit?  In short, I enjoy my guns. 

Your argument seems to be: I like, it is legal, so I do it. I do sense a lack of understanding for reasoning of people proposing more control.

[smotherb]

2 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

The 2nd amendment was written re; smooth bore, single shot guns, and it specified for a 'well-regulated militia.'

 

Imagine this:  there was an Amendment that stated, "....shall have the right to own and take pills for ailments."  ....when the only commercially available pills at the time of the writing, were aspirin made from willow tree bark.

 

Then all the pills made since then, including fentanyl and oxycotin, would be allowed to be taken by anyone, any time, for any reason.  People could make pills made from heroin or carfentanyl (look it up) and say it was allowable anytime to anyone.

 

That's how the 2nd amendment looks to sensible people like myself, and the majority of Americans.    What was written in the 18th century to apply to smoothbore single shot guns, cannot with any sense or logic - be applied to rifles and semi- or fully automatic weapons of war, fabricated over 200 years later.  According to 2nd Amenders (Trump's term for people who love all guns and will shoot anyone who doesn't)....  all Americans should be allowed to own and use grenade launchers.  It's a gun, isn't it?  It's got a projectile, a barrel, and you pull a trigger to fire it.

The type of arms is not stipulated in the Constitution and a militia, to be effective, has to have its own guns. Well, Mr-think-he-knows-it-all, why is it all you "sensible" people do not do anything about the proliferation of guns in the US?

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, smotherb said:

The type of arms is not stipulated in the Constitution and a militia, to be effective, has to have its own guns. Well, Mr-think-he-knows-it-all, why is it all you "sensible" people do not do anything about the proliferation of guns in the US?

"why is it all you "sensible" people do not do anything about the proliferation of guns in the US?"

 

Strange conclusion.

[smotherb]

33 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

The Second Amendment IMHO is very similar to the Koran. Both are very specific in their form, which is not subject to change by true believers.

When you start interpreting both - the Koran in the hadith, or the Second Amendment by the pro and anti-gun movements, that's where the devil is in the detail.

For those who object to the comparison, explain to me how the Second Amendment has not assumed the status of a religion with some Americans.

Gee, did your legs hurt jumping so far? Certainly, anything a number of people strongly believe in may be argued to be similar to the most widespread of belief forms; but why have you limited it to the Koran and not included the Bible, the Torah, Shruti, Tripitaka or any other religious rhetoric? 

[smotherb]

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Your argument seems to be: I like, it is legal, so I do it. I do sense a lack of understanding for reasoning of people proposing more control.

Yeah, seems to be. Very perceptive. However, you apparently missed my point. I was responding to a comment which said my owning 40 guns said a lot about me to him, but that he owned only two for hunting.  Now, had you read my original post which said I was not opposed to gun control, but that it was not an easy task since the Constitution, the pro-gun lobby, and the American gun heritage made it difficult to do . . . 

[smotherb]

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

"why is it all you "sensible" people do not do anything about the proliferation of guns in the US?"

 

Strange conclusion.

Do you ever read the comments which generated the responses upon which you comment?

[iroc4life]

The Second Amendment is for the protection of the state, the states people are the militia. There is no country that would or could invade the states. The southern ones anyways. They would likely take LA SFO and NYC but we would let em have those anyways. Once Great Britain, Ausie, Canada, and Europe are another story. 1. Disarmed citizens 2. Already invaded slowly until recently opened flood gates 3. Complacency to being Sheep. 

 Every argument is itll never happen in this day and age our gov. will protect us. This is laughable at all fronts, Most NATO nations have no military and rely on the devil USA to protect them. Dont believe it? Research how every nations military has dwindled since the inception of NATO except the USA. 

 Complain and advise all you want about our guns, they arent getting them :) and when the time comes again, the USA will save you again hopefully with Once Great Britain's help if she can survive the Brexit 

[stevenl]

7 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Yeah, seems to be. Very perceptive. However, you apparently missed my point. I was responding to a comment which said my owning 40 guns said a lot about me to him, but that he owned only two for hunting.  Now, had you read my original post which said I was not opposed to gun control, but that it was not an easy task since the Constitution, the pro-gun lobby, and the American gun heritage made it difficult to do . . . 

I read that post, and it breathes exactly the same as the comment I made earlier: " Your argument seems to be: I like, it is legal, so I do it. I do sense a lack of understanding for reasoning of people proposing more control. ".

 

Your previous reply to another post of mine is not worthy of a response.

[stevenl]

5 minutes ago, iroc4life said:

The Second Amendment is for the protection of the state, the states people are the militia. There is no country that would or could invade the states. The southern ones anyways. They would likely take LA SFO and NYC but we would let em have those anyways. Once Great Britain, Ausie, Canada, and Europe are another story. 1. Disarmed citizens 2. Already invaded slowly until recently opened flood gates 3. Complacency to being Sheep. 

 Every argument is itll never happen in this day and age our gov. will protect us. This is laughable at all fronts, Most NATO nations have no military and rely on the devil USA to protect them. Dont believe it? Research how every nations military has dwindled since the inception of NATO except the USA. 

 Complain and advise all you want about our guns, they arent getting them :) and when the time comes again, the USA will save you again hopefully with Once Great Britain's help if she can survive the Brexit 

"Complain and advise all you want about our guns, they arent getting them :) and when the time comes again, the USA will save you again"

 

Yes, just as those militias saved Europe in WWII.

[observer90210]

Many interesting thoughts here on the topic.....

 

However even the bravest of politicians remains a politician....the NRA lobby and the firearms consortiums in the USA  have far too many members and potential voters, that can topple any election.....

 

Unfortunately, more of a way to go before the trend is likely to change.....

Edited October 23, 2017 by observer90210

[Craig krup]

1) It can't happen through constitutional amendment - two thirds of both houses and three quarters of the states is impossible. 

2) It has (therefore) to happen through s Supreme Court prepared to rule either, i) that the Second Amendment does imply a personal right to own weapons at all, or ii) that massive restrictions are consistent with the Second Amendment. 

3) If this happens the Congress has to not impeach them - probably they wouldn't. 

4) If it happens law enforcement would have to enforce it - probably they would. 

 

So the Supreme Court is the key. Argue that previous courts' interpretations are inconsistent with the Fourteenth Amendment and "equal protection of the laws", would be my strategy. 

[iroc4life]

Already started but its going the way of Shall not be infringed as it should be.

 

Until 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States had never seriously considered the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment. In its first hearing on the subject, in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevented the states from “prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.” More than four decades later, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), the Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as enshrining that the duty of individuals “to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution” and holding that “the common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution.” Meanwhile, in United States v. Miller (1939), in a prosecution under the National Firearms Act (1934), the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment by merely holding that the “possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” was not “any part of the ordinary military equipment” protected by the Second Amendment.

This uncertainty was ended, however, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court examined the Second Amendment in exacting detail. In a narrow 5–4 majority, delivered by Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that self-defensewas the “central component” of the amendment and that the District of Columbia’s “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense” to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court also affirmed previous rulings that the Second Amendment ensured the right of individuals to take part in the defending of their liberties by taking up arms in an organized militia. However, the court was clear to emphasize that an individual’s right to an “organized militia” is not “the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.”

 

[bazza73]

1 hour ago, smotherb said:

Gee, did your legs hurt jumping so far? Certainly, anything a number of people strongly believe in may be argued to be similar to the most widespread of belief forms; but why have you limited it to the Koran and not included the Bible, the Torah, Shruti, Tripitaka or any other religious rhetoric? 

Not at all. I've been playing golf for over 60 years now, so they are well exercised.

The reason for the limitation to the Koran is immutability. Christianity, Judaism and a number of other religions have changed over the centuries. The Koran and the Second Amendment have not.

Sorry, your attempt at the look over there distraction is pretty pathetic this time around. I expect better of you.

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, smotherb said:

What good is a militia without arms? That is why every US citizen has the right to bear arms, because they are eligible to be called up to a militia. No where in the Constitution does it limit what types of arms a  citizen can bear. That is the problem; did you not read what I said?

I am in favor of doing something to stop all the gun killing and gun violence; however, it is not so easy as to just pass a law. 

                      I don't agree with your missive.  I believe Americans have the right to bear arms who are part of a 'well regulated militia.'  I would include police and FBI, as well as military personnel while on duty. And certain other law-enforcement folks, like guards at banks.

 

                         No one said it would be easy to stop (or even lessen) gun killings.  Indeed, no combination of laws would do that.    Fact remains that mass gun deaths are increasing in the US at the same rate of saturation of gun ownership.   It's going up all the time.  It's at about 1 mass shooting (4 or more people) per day for the past 2 years. 

 

                NRA, Trump, Republicans and some Democrats seem to have little problem with that, unless the shooter is black or Muslim.   Then they go ballistic.   Trump even dog-whistled that "2nd Amenders" should do something about Hillary, because he claimed (falsely, of course), that HRC was going to take all guns away from all Americans.  In other words, Trump was hinting that some gun-lover should take her out with bullets.  

 

2 hours ago, smotherb said:

The type of arms is not stipulated in the Constitution and a militia, to be effective, has to have its own guns. Well, Mr-think-he-knows-it-all, why is it all you "sensible" people do not do anything about the proliferation of guns in the US?

                        There are many things not specified in the Constitution. How could the writers know about technical developments in subsequent centuries?   The Constitution asserts all citizens have the right to 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'  Accordingly, all prisoners should be let out of prison.  It can be further interpreted to say; anyone should be able to walk around nude, if they so choose.  After all, some people equate being nude to the pursuit of happiness.

 

                   You see, it's so easy to twist the wording in a document.  The 2nd Amendment has been royally skewed in order to justify (falsely, in most Americans' view) the ownership of military weapons by any and all non-uniformed people.

[bazza73]

2 hours ago, smotherb said:

 

The fact that I own forty guns is my right as an America; they are all legal and I hold a concealed weapons permit. I am not sure what it says to you, but I am sure I do not care. Several of those guns are from my grandfathers, some from my father, some from my time in Vietnam, some I bought to use for sport or just to collect. I have a 107 acre mountain top boundary of land which has bear, deer, raccoon, rabbit, turkey, duck and quail and there are five public hunting and fishing areas within a fifteen mile radius of my farm. Do you suggest I use the same gun to shoot the bear and the quail, or the deer and the rabbit?  In short, I enjoy my guns. 

I've always believed in having the right gun for what I am hunting. For bear or deer, I'd probably choose a .243 magnum. A 0.22 magnum for rabbit and raccoon, although I'd make the observation only meatheads hunt raccoons. That's because when you eliminate raccoons, the area is overrun by snakes. A long barrel .410 shotgun for anything else. So that's three guns.

I can understand why you would want to keep collectibles handed down in your family; however, the thought of you driving a pickup bristling with 40 guns to your hunting grounds is somewhat laughable.

Now fess up - how many of those 40 guns are semi-automatics, whose only purpose is killing people?

[Craig krup]

1 hour ago, iroc4life said:

This uncertainty was ended, however, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court examined the Second Amendment in exacting detail. In a narrow 5–4 majority, delivered by Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court held that self-defensewas the “central component” of the amendment and that the District of Columbia’s “prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense” t

 

 

Hardly "ended". A 5-4, and saying that prohibiting "any" is going too far is hardly a sweeping right to own, bear, cuddle, coddle, brandish, f*** around with, twirl for an inflated sense of self-importance....

 

Show me a militia which, once a year, walks sixty miles in 20 hours and puts down sixty aimed shots at 200-300m in two minutes and I'll say, "They should keep their AR15s". The rest of it is just nonsense. 

[smotherb]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

I read that post, and it breathes exactly the same as the comment I made earlier: " Your argument seems to be: I like, it is legal, so I do it. I do sense a lack of understanding for reasoning of people proposing more control. ".

 

Your previous reply to another post of mine is not worthy of a response.

Well, I am happy you read it but you apparently did not understand it--my point was it isn't easy to change and implement gun control--one of the reasons is many Americans, like me, want their guns, but by far the more difficult reasons are the hoops to jump through to change the Constitution and the pro-gun lobby you have to confront. But nice to know you at least saw I liked my guns.

[smotherb]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

"Complain and advise all you want about our guns, they arent getting them :) and when the time comes again, the USA will save you again"

 

Yes, just as those militias saved Europe in WWII.

No, it was our well-armed boys who received a little training, but most already knew how to use guns. However, we not only saved you from speaking German, we also got you out of those little cages the Japs put you in, and we helped you rebuild your old nanny states--but whose counting, you certainly aren't.

[smotherb]

59 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Not at all. I've been playing golf for over 60 years now, so they are well exercised.

The reason for the limitation to the Koran is immutability. Christianity, Judaism and a number of other religions have changed over the centuries. The Koran and the Second Amendment have not.

Sorry, your attempt at the look over there distraction is pretty pathetic this time around. I expect better of you.

Well, whether or not the Quran has changed is debatable--research it and see. Most arguments say it has changed very little. The Bible, Torah, Shruti, Tipitaka have also changed. However, unlike the others, the second amendment is a civil law not based on religious faith and there is a definitive procedure which can be applied to change it. Many have tried to change the 2nd amendment, but none have succeeded. So, your analogy lacks enough credence to continue the debate.

[smotherb]

55 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

                      I don't agree with your missive.  I believe Americans have the right to bear arms who are part of a 'well regulated militia.'  I would include police and FBI, as well as military personnel while on duty. And certain other law-enforcement folks, like guards at banks.

 

                         No one said it would be easy to stop (or even lessen) gun killings.  Indeed, no combination of laws would do that.    Fact remains that mass gun deaths are increasing in the US at the same rate of saturation of gun ownership.   It's going up all the time.  It's at about 1 mass shooting (4 or more people) per day for the past 2 years. 

 

                NRA, Trump, Republicans and some Democrats seem to have little problem with that, unless the shooter is black or Muslim.   Then they go ballistic.   Trump even dog-whistled that "2nd Amenders" should do something about Hillary, because he claimed (falsely, of course), that HRC was going to take all guns away from all Americans.  In other words, Trump was hinting that some gun-lover should take her out with bullets.  

 

                        There are many things not specified in the Constitution. How could the writers know about technical developments in subsequent centuries?   The Constitution asserts all citizens have the right to 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'  Accordingly, all prisoners should be let out of prison.  It can be further interpreted to say; anyone should be able to walk around nude, if they so choose.  After all, some people equate being nude to the pursuit of happiness.

 

                   You see, it's so easy to twist the wording in a document.  The 2nd Amendment has been royally skewed in order to justify (falsely, in most Americans' view) the ownership of military weapons by any and all non-uniformed people.

The problem with interpretation is you have to have the wherewithal to convince people of your interpretation. It appears that mine is the valid interpretation at this point, because Americans can still own guns and it is based on prevailing second amendment interpretation.

[Craig krup]

16 minutes ago, smotherb said:

No, it was our well-armed boys who received a little training, but most already knew how to use guns. However, we not only saved you from speaking German, we also got you out of those little cages the Japs put you in, and we helped you rebuild your old nanny states--but whose counting, you certainly aren't.

 

You'd have more "boys" to arm and train if you could stop them shooting and killing each other. I've seen few who "know how to use guns". Most of them seem to think that normal safety procedures have something to do with birth control. 

[iroc4life]

Quote

There are many things not specified in the Constitution. How could the writers know about technical developments in subsequent centuries?   The Constitution asserts all citizens have the right to 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'  Accordingly, all prisoners should be let out of prison.  It can be further interpreted to say; anyone should be able to walk around nude, if they so choose.  After all, some people equate being nude to the pursuit of happiness.

 

 

Wrong Document dude

 

"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all human beings by their Creator, and which governments are created to protect.

[boomerangutang]

31 minutes ago, smotherb said:

The problem with interpretation is you have to have the wherewithal to convince people of your interpretation. It appears that mine is the valid interpretation at this point, because Americans can still own guns and it is based on prevailing second amendment interpretation.

I admit that your interpretation takes precedence at this time.  It doesn't mean it's logical or sensible or good for protecting the well-being of Americans.  It has more to do with the fact that many Americans really like to have guns.  

 

Other things that many Americans like to do, but are viewed by society as dangerous:  pop fireworks, drink alcohol, speed in their cars, have illicit sex, do mind-numbing or mind-expanding drugs, and so on.   The things that mainstream Americans enjoy doing are made to be officially legal, like drinking alcohol.  the things that mainstreamers don't relate to, like doing heroin, are deemed illegal.  The arguments pro and con are endless.

 

Note:  hemp is classified among the most dangerous drugs and can land a person in jail - yet no one has ever gotten high or stoned from hemp.  It proves my point:  many laws are subject to interpretation, and the majority usually gets their way, even though it's not often sensible.

 

back to gun laws:  If it wasn't for the fun of owning and shooting guns, military grade types would be illegal.  Public safety should take precedence over what's fun.  Same reasoning: speeding in cars while drunk is illegal.  It's fun, but it's dangerous.  Guns too, are dangerous.

[smotherb]

58 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

I've always believed in having the right gun for what I am hunting. For bear or deer, I'd probably choose a .243 magnum. A 0.22 magnum for rabbit and raccoon, although I'd make the observation only meatheads hunt raccoons. That's because when you eliminate raccoons, the area is overrun by snakes. A long barrel .410 shotgun for anything else. So that's three guns.

I can understand why you would want to keep collectibles handed down in your family; however, the thought of you driving a pickup bristling with 40 guns to your hunting grounds is somewhat laughable.

Now fess up - how many of those 40 guns are semi-automatics, whose only purpose is killing people?

Never said I had to tote all 40 guns to my land in my pick-up. The collectables I rarely shoot; although all are in good working condition. I usually carry about ten guns. My lever action Marlin in 30-30, my bolt-action Winchester 70 in 30-06, my 16 gauge Savage 755a semi-auto, my Remington SPR94 over/under .22/410, my 50 cal black powder/percussion Hawkins,  my 7 1/2 in barrelled Ruger Vaguero in 44 magnum, my Glock 35 in .40 cal S&W, my trusty .22 Remington 550 semi-auto rifle, my Smith & Wesson 22A .22 semi-auto pistol. That covers my plinking and hunting needs. I really enjoy deer hunting with the Vaquero or 30-30, turkey and other fowl with the Savage 16, bear with the W70,  I set up targets out in my field in front of my cabin and plink away with the .22s, Hawkins, and Glock  --there is a mountain behind the field and it is my land too. Of course, that doesn't include my Kahr MK9 Elite in 9mm I use for my backup concealed carry. Bristling, well maybe just a little; because I can, you see.

[smotherb]

51 minutes ago, Craig krup said:

 

You'd have more "boys" to arm and train if you could stop them shooting and killing each other. I've seen few who "know how to use guns". Most of them seem to think that normal safety procedures have something to do with birth control. 

Gee, you think so? Damn, how long did it take you to figure that out?

[smotherb]

14 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

I admit that your interpretation takes precedence at this time.  It doesn't mean it's logical or sensible or good for protecting the well-being of Americans.  It has more to do with the fact that many Americans really like to have guns.  

 

Other things that many Americans like to do, but are viewed by society as dangerous:  pop fireworks, drink alcohol, speed in their cars, have illicit sex, do mind-numbing or mind-expanding drugs, and so on.   The things that mainstream Americans enjoy doing are made to be officially legal, like drinking alcohol.  the things that mainstreamers don't relate to, like doing heroin, are deemed illegal.  The arguments pro and con are endless.

 

Note:  hemp is classified among the most dangerous drugs and can land a person in jail - yet no one has ever gotten high or stoned from hemp.  It proves my point:  many laws are subject to interpretation, and the majority usually gets their way, even though it's not often sensible.

 

back to gun laws:  If it wasn't for the fun of owning and shooting guns, military grade types would be illegal.  Public safety should take precedence over what's fun.  Same reasoning: speeding in cars while drunk is illegal.  It's fun, but it's dangerous.  Guns too, are dangerous.

Yeah, fun but dangerous, like riding a motorcycle, sleeping with your neighbor's wife or knowing where to get a drink on a Buddhist holiday.

[Craig krup]

9 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Gee, you think so? Damn, how long did it take you to figure that out?

This is what philosophers call a category error. The claim I'm making is based on a [purported] observation. You wouldn't ask how someone "figured out" that there was a pink hippo in the room, would you? If they said they'd concluded that there was one, they'd be presumed to have seen it. 

 

Lock 'n load

Working parts

Rocky road

Punctured hearts

High earners

Slow learners

NRA?

Doesn't pay

Guns galore? 

Childish bore

Self-protection?

Failed erection

 

 

[BudRight]

On 10/21/2017 at 8:48 PM, Samui Bodoh said:

Reasonable background checks should be mandatory. People need a licence to drive a car, why not to own a gun? 

 

The US had gone mental with the second amendment.

 

It is time to try to undo some of the damage.

 

Because it is a civil right to own a gun, not to drive a car.

 

By this standard they've also "gone mental" with gay rights, women's rights, freedom of the press, and voting rights for ethnic minorities.

 

If by this this you mean resurrect dead people, then please show us how. 

[BudRight]

I hope this means we're now allowed polls on what laws Thailand should have.