2nd amendment (latebreaking arguement)

OK I remember a big arguement about the second amendment and guns and all sorts of odd things -
just today [Veteran's Day] I happened across a 2nd amendment site which researches exactly what the law says and doesn't say.
Head to http://www.infinet.com/~bmueller/Index.html

..and, once you go there, argue there also!!!(man, I feel like such a wet blanket for reminding folks here about the severe trouble 'off topics' caused on the Forum,especially THIS topic!!!..but someone has to do it. How many people left the Forum the last time this topic hit? 3??4??.Remember well, is all I have to say.
VBR,JimR

Don't sweat it Jim. By now we all know Michael goes out too often in the hot Arizona sun without his baseball cap. The peak goes to the front Michael.

Jim R.,
I seem to recall that the reason some people left, was due to the individuals (newcomers) that post on the Forum under a pseudoname, and post under other people's names. These postings to which I refer are inflammatory and personal attacks with regard to a posted opinion. These individuals lack the courage to come here under their own names, and hence are not worthy of replies to their posts. The only reason I reply to this Spook 3 character is due to the fact of his disparagement of Frank Luke. This is no less than the guff I've received when I've posted my opinions about MvR. But as far as just antagonizing people for the sake of stirring up a fight, THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT MY STYLE!
Regards,
Jim

[BillyH]

Interrogatory: If the folks who are against guns because they kill 63% of those murdered, and want to ban them: Does it mean that they don't care about the 37% of the people murdered by other means. If they do care shouldn't they also want to ban these other means?
Interrrogatory: Are there any true statisticians who can tell me if there is any correspondence between the folks who want to ban guns, and those who think abortion is not terminating life? Billy H/11/11/99

[stephen]

>>>>>and those who think abortion is not terminating life

No one really believes that, Billy. Even pro-abortionists long ago abandoned such indefensible claims in favor of more palatable arguements.

If I may continue Billy's line of wise questions... saw an interesting question on a web site the other day for gun censors. It deserves an answer. Went something like this...

"Are you willing to die, or kill me, in order to take away my gun and deny me the right to self defense and other God-given rights? Because I am willing to die or kill you in order to keep them."

That sort of clarifies the issue, now doesn't it?

Contrary to popular (?) belief, gun control is not synonymous with "taking away everyone's guns". I grew up in rural Canada, and guns were relatively common -- however the guns were generally rifles and shotguns, not automatic handguns and assault rifles.

There is definitely a price to be paid for gun control, as some personal "liberty" is lost. But there are social benefits as well ... how you weigh the costs vs. the benefits is largely a matter of ideology, upbringing, politics, etc.. It should be noted that we give up personal liberty everyday, in many ways, in order to further the social good. Taxes, traffic laws, insider trading regulations, and so forth.

I'm not saying that you have to "believe" in gun control, but at least be open minded enough to recognize that the idea has some merits, and that it isn't just a pointless "liberal" conspiracy.

Graham

[stephen]

- I would certainly agree that the confiscation of gun freedoms is not pointless. We may debate what that point is, but there most assuredly is one.

- Whatever possible merit that the confiscation of gun freedoms might possess is in no way related to crime reduction. That is a supportable fact.

- There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." That is a propogandistic creation of gun censorship groups which they don't even deny. Sorry to nit-pick, but that is a perfect example of the way the public is manipulated (and I'm not throwing you into that category just becaused you used the term).

Holding our DP championship this weekend and wish you could make it. You could show some of our greenhorns how this game is played.

[Barrett]

According to the United States Department of Defense, there actually is one true assault weapon in the inventory: the SMAW, Shoulder-Mounted Assault Weapon.
It's a rocket launcher.
"The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper name." Attributed to Confucius.

First of all, I used the term "assault rifle", not "assault weapon". I have no idea if that makes any difference. I was referring to weapons such as the AK47.

Second, it is possible to place restrictions on the use of firearms without preventing ownership. For example, in Canada people are allowed to own handguns (with a license), but they must (generally) belong to a gun club, the weapons must be transported in a locked case, and they can only be transported to or from a firearm range. This allows ownership, which facilitates the notion of "civil defense", while still helping to encourage responsible ownership, and aid in enforcement of violations.

Third, gun control laws may or may not have an impact on the incidence of crime - the academic literature is mixed. However, the severity of crime is almost certainly reduced. Relative to the US, firearm murders, and murders in total, are much lower in most nations with gun control laws.

Effective gun control laws that govern the use of firearms, not necessarily possession, also prevent accidental shootings, particularly among children. Not everyone is as responsible as the typical forumite, and their children should not necessarily be punished for their stupidity.

Finally, complete registration of firearms would allow people who store them irresponsibly to be punished if they are misused. For example, if someone's handgun is stolen and used in a crime, the person from whom it was stolen could be held partially accountable.

Graham