1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Guns - Let Talk Compromise

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ShinyTop, Oct 25, 2002.

  1. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Neither side of the gun issue is willing to compromise. I am a believer in private ownership of guns. But I did not renew my membership for two reasons, one the NRA's inability to compromise when I feel they should and two, the incessant requests for more money.

    Now I understand the NRA or any gun owner hesitating to compromise. Especially after the BS that the state of California pulled.

    But maybe if the fears of gun owners could be allayed we could make some common sense compromises.

    For instance, I see nothing wrong with ballistic registration of guns. It would help us all if perps of gun crimes were caught and put away. And besides, when the public sees that most gun crimes are not commited with the legal guns it will only back what we have been saying all along, gun laws will not reduce crime. By definition criminals do not obey laws.

    Now what could we get back. Let's start with the elimination of laws regarding magazine size, folding stocks, and flash hiders. And if we get really lucky a lifting of the ban on semi automatic weapons that Clinton outlawed.

    But what will the anti-gun folks do to allay our fears this is just the first step towards confiscation of our guns? How about part of the law is that no more restrictions can be put on gun ownership without a national referendum? How about a clearly worded amendment clairifying the right to gun ownership?

    What can they offer? After all, our country is supposed to be about compromise on prickly problems.
     
  2. jamming

    jamming Banned

    Ballistic's can be easily altered by a machine shop that can make the registered pattern completely unrecognizable. I could throw off the detection in most cases with a circular file. This fellow and his accomplice were so organized that they could of done this themselves, it is really only the stupid or incompetant criminal that would be caught with this. Just another Dumb Idea brought to you by Michael Moore and the rest of the stupid left, not to be confused with the smart left, which seems to get smaller every day.
     
  3. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Cool. What can we do to take the constant pressure off - what compromise can be reached? I am afraid if we don't we will have more crap rammed down our throats.
     
  4. jamming

    jamming Banned

    I am actually leaning towards this one because it is so easy to by-pass, but it galls me to think that they would still use it to say look what we did. When really it is nothing important and would cost a lot of taxpayer's money to keep track of it.
     
  5. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Great thread, Shiny. :)

    Can the pro-gunners accept that all guns sold MUST have some form of a lock?
     
  6. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I don't know about that one. With no kids in the house and gun for self defense they had better come up with a lock I can get off in a hurry. I think maybe a lock when children in the house? A thorny one.
     
  7. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    There's been talk of electronic fingerprint ID that only allows the firearm to be discharged if it recognizes the legal owner's fingerprint...that too can be easily bypassed.

    The truth of the matter is that anything imposed restricts legal owners and is easily negated by illegal possesors. This includes designing and machining your own gun from scratch...which I'm pretty sure I could do and I'm anything but a master machinist.
     
  8. mikeky

    mikeky Member

    I might go so far as to consider a mandatory gun safety class for those wanting to purchase a firearm.

    Also, very stiff penalties for those accountable for gun accidents, e.g., the irresponsible parent that doesn't lock the gun and his child is killed playing with it, or the hunter that shoots at anything that moves and kills a bystander. No longer allow "I'm sorry" to be good enough.

    And sure, do the ballistics database, even though it's possibly flawed, it might prove somewhat useful.
     
  9. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Friends,
    I destest violence, and believe that the use of guns is, almost always, like almost all war, basically evil.
    That having been said, I am still unconvinced that the USSC got the grammar right in <i>Miller,</i>, and find the tendency to control a basic right for the general public good is rather frightening. Without wishing to argue against stare decisis, I do find that the plain langugage of the amendment, and the court's statement that the amendment exists only to allow for a militia is reading a lot into a gerundive. Thus, I cannot say for certain that gun control in general is simply not contravened by the amendment, merely that current precedent allows for it.
    However, "interpreting" the text in a way that allows for a popular, and obviously morally proper, thing such as handgun control will become insidious when we apply the logic to other basic rights. Thus, the danger of a few lunatics with little or no saftey training is to be weighed against the loss of strict construction. I am not willing to have the government tell me what to believe, or attack my domicile, and, with all due respect to the court, I believe that it is the intention of the framers to use thr rights granted in the second amendment to defend those in the others, even against the government. Else, the gerundive must be applied only positively, and there is no reason, other than convenience, so to do.
    I still prefer Jefferson.

    All good wishes,
    YAzdziik
     
  10. EMIG

    EMIG Yup

    Please explain re: Jefferson.

    Have you looked at the Emerson case? It looks like Second Amendment law is finally coming back from the twilight zone.
     
  11. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Martin, EMIG, and others.

    I agree to what you are saying Martin, guns ARE inherently evil. However, based on the construct of our Constitution, we must find a compromise. For everyone who feels like you and me, there are people who want their rights and essentially guns.

    What we can't do by law, I think, and I may be wrong, we can do with comporise.

    Mikeky brought up another good point on schooling of potential owners. Will people accept THAT as mandatory?

    If you want a gun, you basically go for not just learning how to shoot it but mostly how to keep it safe, clean it, and all kinds of lessons on kids and curiousity.

    EMIG, I am not sure about your last sentence regarding the 2nd ammendment.
     
  12. jamming

    jamming Banned

    The right to bear armes, is predicated to protect ourselves from outward or internal material. I think that we should require mandatory training at the high school level showing the effectiveness and how to properly use a Long Rifle or Shotgun. They would go for one week of classes, on the basic operation and cleaning of the rifle, shotgun, revolver and pistol. They would learn the laws that regulate the use of the guns. Those that passed are considered members in good standing of the militia, part of the process is to register for the draft. With a militia affirmation ceremony, similiar to the military oath, this would be required to purchase a weapon and could be documented on thier drivers license.
     
  13. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I would love to see that. I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell, but I would love to see it.
     
  14. fritzmp

    fritzmp Fire Fire For Effect

    First off, guns are not evil, only men who use them are. Guns are a tool and a good one at that. Like fire I can cook with, I don't try to give my neighbor a bath with it which is evil. Many noble things have been done with a sword and a gun, too include saving ones own life from evil. Liberating Europe from evil. The list is long too include our own Independence.

    The second Amendment says Regulated Militia, I see that to include training by the state and not to userp our rights and protect people who are a danger to them selves and others. It was not written as a suicide pact, but the intent should stay intact. Protect our selves from those who would do us harm too include our own Government.

    I found this and looks to be a well middle of the road Second Amendment view on Emerson and the 5th district court.



    http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/emerson/So a news report that refers to the legal rationale for restricting "a person's Second Amendment right to bear arms" is arguably conceding the field of battle and just negotiating the terms of surrender.
     
  15. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    I think its a given that I am considered the token reactionary conspiratorial lunatic around here, correct me if I am wrong, but whenever the issue of 'gun control' (bit of an oxymoron in my opinion) comes up, I cannot help but think of Hitler.

    One of the first things he did upon rising to power in Germany was to completely disarm the public, something many of our federally elected officials have clearly stated they would love to see done. "No guns - No problem!" Oh brother, thats some stellar logic.

    I am against gun registration. I feel it is patently unconstitutional and contrary to the basic tenets upon which this country was founded.

    It is our responsibility as Americans to keep a watchful eye on our governing bodies. It is naive in the extreme to think that our government would never turn against us and use force in the pursuit of denying us our rights. It may seem very unlikely, and I agree that it probably is, but it is not an impossibility, and I for one intend to remain armed - in the pursuit of shooting holes in pieces of paper, blowing cans off of fenceposts, defending my life and property from those with criminal and violent intent and, if need be, protecting myself from a governing body and its military that no longer represents me, and seeks to unjustly infringe upon my rights as a human, and as an American. Unlikely? I think so. Impossible? Only a fool believes, and so like my old New England ancestors say "Better safe then sorry - ayup!".

    That being said, I do realize that because of the state of modern American society and culture, something DOES need to be done as regards firearms in this country. Strangling the second amendment is not the solution, neither is simply passing out rifles and ammo to every 18 year old kid. "Good luck cowboy!"

    Education, as always, is the solution. Jammings idea, a couple posts up, is excellent - hits the nail right on the head. I would bring it one step further. I am in favor of mandatory military service, 2 years, for every American citizen.

    Take a look at the present generation of young Americans. Nobody needs 2 years in the military more than these kids do. I think it would be one of the wisest moves we could make to ensure that America does not continue down the path upon which it presently walks.
     
  16. BigDeputyDog

    BigDeputyDog Straight Shootin Admin Staff Member

    /ramble on
    As a father, law enforcement officer, private citizen, husband (well, I used to be!), brother, and, friend my thoughts and emotions on firearms are all over the spectrum.
    I have seen the carnage and effects on survivor's lives that can be brought on by the discharge of a firearm. I have witnessed the aftermath of the use of both legal and illegal weapons. I have both fired and been fired upon. I have unholstered my weapon and shot to defend both my life and that of a stranger. I have had a family member whos life was shortened by an "unloaded" gun, and another who took their own life with a legally purchased and owned weapon.
    I am an advocate of responsible and intelligent gun ownership. This includes, but is not limited to, attending an approved weapon safety class, range qualifying, and extensive background check.
    IMHO, this country does not need more restrictive or additional gun laws. There are plenty (if not too many) laws already on the books. What is needed is more emphasis on the penalties involved in breaking these laws. I can incarcerate them and hold them until they are in front of the judge, but then their fate and sentencing is out of my hands. It is an excercise in futility when a police officer "locks 'em up" and the judge "turns 'em loose".

    Oh... and by the way... guns do NOT kill people... people do... I've carried a weapon for over 30 years and not once did it ever fire without a finger pressing on the trigger...
    When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns...

    Thanks for the opportunity to say my piece... please return to your regularly scheduled thread...

    /ramble off

    BDD... :{)
     
  17. -Ken

    -Ken Guest

    I do not believe guns are inherently evil. I have no problem
    with people keeping guns for protection or sport.

    While I don't hunt, I have nothing against people who do. If
    people wish to shoot at targets as sport I see no problem with
    that, at all.

    There is no need to compromise - as long as the gun owners
    will take responsibility for their guns. Whether or not trigger
    locks work or bio-locks will do the job really doesn't make a
    difference to me. If a gun is stolen during a robbery the owner
    needs to do some serious explaining. If we grant them the
    responsibility of gun ownership, we need to know they will
    be responsible.

    There should never an instance where a home gets robbed and
    while the family jewels are protected in the safe, the gun is stolen.

    I think you would find, if you all will agree to "take responsibility"
    for your weapons (and I know most of you do) I think you will see
    an amazingly diminished argument from the anti-gun coalition.

    Lets face it. The people who dont own guns are never responsible
    for illegal guns turning up on the street. If you gun owners can make
    it so next to no guns end up in criminals hands, most of the rest of us
    would have very little to complain about. But the fact of the matter is,
    many of the guns criminals use do come from legitimate gun owners.
     
  18. Domh

    Domh Full Member

    I disagree.

    There is a big difference between owning a gun and possessing a gun.

    Most of the guns used to commit crimes move around from criminal to criminal, never legally bought or owned, merely possessed by individuals who have not demonstrated that they are capable of responsible use.

    You cannot blame responsible gun owners for the actions of irresponsible gun users.

    edit - typo
     
  19. yazdzik

    yazdzik Veteran Member

    Dear Friends,
    I think I covered my point by referring to cases and things that people may not have read.
    Let me restate it:
    Even though I hate guns, the second amendment, like all others, needs to be strictly construed; therefore, the right to bear arms ought to be unrestricted.
    I believe the court erred in Miller, as the language of the phrase is not restrictive.
    Thus, regulations may not create an onus which would influence the ability to bear arms, i e, if the regulations would make it less likely, they are, in fact, unconstitutional.
    I am in absolute agreement with Domhain, that all young people should be required to do some service to a land whose freedoms allow them to speak, to carry weapons, to be free form search and so forth.
    The right to bear arms is a much a protection against the government as each other and natural predators.
    Therefore, what I meant by "I prefer Jefferson" is that the amendment stands without excessive "interpretation." It is dangerous, but less so than an armed police force and an unarmed citizenry.
    I hope this clarifies, as some apparently feel I took the opposite position of that which I in fact did, due to my use of obscure references, for which I sincerely apologise.
    Gun control, like censorship, is un-American. Reasoned debate, like reasoned ownership of guns, is part of our rational humanist culture, and those who would remove one most assuredly are not far away from removing the other.

    All good wishes,
    Martin
     
  20. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Here's a twist on the topic and a personal question.

    With all of you folk being pro-gun, would you still own a gun, in your home, illegaly?
     

Share This Page