Post Your Guns

[wheelr]

I fail to see the problem with legally owning a gun. With the proper background check and the ten day waiting period it is very unlikely some nutjob is going to go thru the process of doing all that just to start trouble. Of course it is possible, but with the amount of registered gun owners.... its a very very small percentage of people with bad intent.

I'm surprised they haven't banned automobile use yet. I mean, people run from the cops in them right? People hit people while driving, people drive drunk, the list goes on and on and on. A gun is a tool, just like a hammer, just like a screwdriver, just like a kitchen knife. If it falls into the wrong hands shit will hit the fan. When used properly, whether it be for home defense, self defense, hunting, target shooting, sport, whatever it is fine. I don't care about "rights" or the constitution. Its more about reason and responsibility. If you're a hack, you shouldn't have a gun. If you're a solid dude with any legit reason to own one and you pass the state requirements, whats the problem?

Because we are moving towards a protectionist society.  It is a vicious cycle that feeds on itself.  Just thirty years ago our parents could go hunting in the morning and drive straight to school with their rifle in the back window of their truck (I wonder if school shootings have increased or decreased since the prohibition of guns on campus?).  Today, we blame everything else but the individual who breaks the law and can't function in society.

[couch]

Thats exactly what I'm saying. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

[Small Member]

Ummmm, it is my right.  The reason it is number two is to insure the protection of the other rights you love so much.  I understand YOU don't think it should be a right but it has stood for over 200 years which to me is bolder than any statement you can make.  My other reasons I cite for owning a firearm are just side benefits.

All it would take is for the government to amend that right and suddenly it disappears. All the guns in the world can't stop a piece of legislation in a civilized country that adheres to the rule of law.

But you'd probably go to war for it right? They went to war over slavery too.

Slavery was part of that exact same document for 88 years as well.
200 years is certainly a longer period of time, but the simple fact that there are indeed amendments to that document proves that it in and of itself is not as infallible as you seem to think it is. It was changed before and it can be changed again.

Ownership of an inanimate object and ownership of a human being is two entirely different things.  Keep trying.

For us, yeah, but not according to the document we are talking about. For the 'forefathers' slaves were inanimate objects. They were possessions pure and simple, and they were defined as such in the literature of the day.

You're completely missing the context in which the document was written, and that is basically my point here.

What if you were constitutionally entitled to own miniature train sets? Or tea cozies? Or hats?

The idea that a possession is worthy of the highest legal protection a country can afford is so disturbingly absurd that it boggles the mind of those of us who use reason and logic to progress further in society.

Can you explain how the second amendment is "grossly misinterpreted today"?

Any situation in which someone tries to justify owning automatic weapons or excessive amounts of guns by using the 2nd amendment.
You can justify it by the reasons you may need said weapons (hunting, defense, sport shooting) and those are technically sound arguments, but using the constitution doesn't provide any solid grounds for owning weapons.
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

And sadly, the second isn't "a right of equal stature".  One must go through a background check in order to purchase a firearm.  One must follow hundreds of laws specifically addressing where, when, and how he can carry a firearm.  Maybe we should require background checks in order to excercise one's freedom of speech and freedom of religion as well.

Again, according to the constitution it is. There are many laws in place which limit the 1st Amendment to certain degrees and in certain situations. Many popular religions allow the practice of several things which the rule of law deems unacceptable. Stoning, canings, capital punishment, animal sacrifice, etc. that we have laws against.



I'll reiterate my point; the ownership of any specific possession should not be an inalienable right of equal importance as the other rights contained in the Constitution and subsequent amendments to it.







Would you be for or against a law that requires all new firearms for civilian issue to be usable only by its registered owner through any type of control  system (ex: fingerprint locks, dna locks, etc.) should said system become available?

I'll even concede to my hypothetical question that the system is not connected to any network so that the government couldn't 'shut it down' if they had to.

[Birdmane]

1984 here we come.

[wheelr]

Small Member, I understand what you are saying but you seem to forget the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  It is there to fight against a tyrannical government.  It's no surprise it is mainly the Dems who want to amend it.  They want to change the government toward a radically different model than what it was founded upon and many people won't stand for it.

The second has stood strong for years and sadly, many want to strip it away due to others reasons such as the failure to uphold a civil society and strictly enforce current laws.  Like mentioned before, all part of the "blame someone/something else/depend on the government" society some want to grow.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson

I never understand how so many can criticize the government on one topic and then go on to believe they always have our best interests in mind.  The federal government needs to shrink and state governments need more say in what their people can or cannot do.  California has strict gun control, people can move there if they don't agree with the majority in the state where they currently live.

Would you be for or against a law that requires all new firearms for civilian issue to be usable only by its registered owner through any type of control  system (ex: fingerprint locks, dna locks, etc.) should said system become available?

I'll even concede to my hypothetical question that the system is not connected to any network so that the government couldn't 'shut it down' if they had to.

I would be against it.  Again, we need to straighten out the current mess before we keep moving forward in the wrong direction.  It always makes me sick to see murderers and rapists get off with easy sentences and to then watch some question why crime is so high.

Our crime problem runs way deeper than the people's right to bear arms.

[Birdmane]

The 2nd Amendment is not held as an inalienable right or equally important to the other amendments, the ones that are incorporated, because the 2nd amendment is yet to be incorporated.

[Birdmane]

I'll reiterate my point; the ownership of any specific possession should not be an inalienable right of equal importance as the other rights contained in the Constitution and subsequent amendments to it.

The 2nd Amendment is not held as an inalienable right or equally important to the other amendments, the ones that are incorporated, because the 2nd amendment is yet to be incorporated.

[human]

Wheelr, you're an out-of-control teen.

[Birdmane]

Anyways...I got a 188? Smith and Wesson Trapdoor .38 Revolver.  I am in the process of restoring it.  It is pretty cool.   It looks like this but missing the grip covers and with some bad chrome.

http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s135/bassbikerdan/?action=view¤t=P1010008.jpg" target="_blank">http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s135/bassbikerdan/P1010008.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket">

[Ben Dover]

Thats exactly what I'm saying. "Guns don't kill people, rappers kill people."

....

[Birdmane]

....

Are you in deep thought?

[Small Member]

Small Member, I understand what you are saying but you seem to forget the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  It is there to fight against a tyrannical government.  It's no surprise it is mainly the Dems who want to amend it.  They want to change the government toward a radically different model than what it was founded upon and many people won't stand for it.

The second has stood strong for years and sadly, many want to strip it away due to others reasons such as the failure to uphold a civil society and strictly enforce current laws.  Like mentioned before, all part of the "blame someone/something else/depend on the government" society some want to grow.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." -Thomas Jefferson

I never understand how so many can criticize the government on one topic and then go on to believe they always have our best interests in mind.  The federal government needs to shrink and state governments need more say in what their people can or cannot do.  California has strict gun control, people can move there if they don't agree with the majority in the state where they currently live.




I would be against it.  Again, we need to straighten out the current mess before we keep moving forward in the wrong direction.  It always makes me sick to see murderers and rapists get off with easy sentences and to then watch some question why crime is so high.

Our crime problem runs way deeper than the people's right to bear arms.

I understand too your point of the 2nd Amendment being there to protect the other rights in the constitution. I suppose its necessary too, even if only as an idea to hold on to.



The fact remains that if the 2nd amendment was suddenly removed today, even through legislation, the gun culture wouldn't suddenly disappear in the United States.


I think my issue really revolves around peoples opposition to gun laws and how they use the 2nd amendment to oppose them.


I've always been an opponent of the second amendment based on the common interpretation of it.

So I guess I've got to change my argument a bit. I can't now necessarily say I'm against the 2nd amendment entirely. I still think it shouldn't be there to protect gun ownership specifically, but that it should protect the right to rise up against an oppressive government. I think the specific wording of the amendment should be changed.

That, however, is a universal right to mankind and no document can make a claim against it, for it would be simple human nature to resist and therefor that fact alone would render any real need for a right like that in any kind of legal form to be almost arbitrary.

I've never been opposed to people owning guns, I've been opposed to people owning any type of guns they want.
I guess it just comes down to what kind of guns you can own, and who can own them.

I'm pretty sure that's where all our real arguments stem from.

That, and as a Canadian, I don't fear my government.

[ilvmybicycle]

i dont fear the government i just dont trust it

[ilvmybicycle]

Question for all of you gun owners out there
A or B


a

b

[Birdmane]

C:  
http://photobucket.com/images/steyr%20aug" target="_blank">http://i349.photobucket.com/albums/q381/krathos/IMG_4038.jpg" border="0" alt="STEYR AUG Pictures, Images and Photos"/>