I love your passion. Really. Because in a very big way I totally agree with you. I don't want the sort of government you seem to be implying I want. Ironically, there are many in this country that want to force me to stay alive even if I want to die as when I'm on my death bed and have no legal way to end my life even though I am going through terrible pain and have no hope of recovery.
I don't know if you read one of my earlier posts. I'm fine with personal gun ownership. I sometimes think it might be a good idea, especially in this heavily armed country and when I'm isolated.
But no, I'm not interested in forcing people to live or be safe even. But if I or my friends and family want to be safe, especially while doing unsafe things like driving, ya, I'm interested in doing something, if possible about those folks that are causing things to be disproportionately unsafe.
I'm quite fastenated though that what I have brought up is so controversial. I guess all the more reason it does need to be talked about.

Neil

Hi General,

You understand we that talk about gun control do not mean banning them all together, right? I think maybe that's what gun owners fear, but it's not what I for one, want. Unfortunately, I also at least want to know I can go get one to protect my family. Again, to me it's about doing something about the fact that too many non-law abiding people have them and often go use them with not so good outcomes.

Neil

Here's the problem with going the "We want gun-control, not complete gun ban"...

Not sure if I said this already or not but... "Give a mouse a cookie, he's gonna want some milk"..

You allow the government to start regulating what you can and can't do - in ANY aspect of life - it will try to do more.. and more.

Power Corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. we need to be extremely careful about what we allow our legislators to control about our lives.

Perfect example is DC.. since the supreme court hadn't ever taken a stance on it; and since nobody fought it; they had an outright, complete, ban on all handguns.. and they required all permit rifles in a home to be stored separately from ammo and in a safe or disassembled!!

These are the very same gun control tactics government wants to imposed on everyone - but they aren't that strict - YET.. but DC is the perfect example of where their logic is leading. They want to ban all "hypothetical" assault weapons.. and then want to restrict magazine capacity.. when almost ALL semi-auto handguns have a magazine that holds more rounds than the ban wants - therefore in an indirect way; that rule practically bans all semi-autos.. and which point only revolvers will be legal.

How long before they get to make some obscure law that takes wheel-guns out of the picture?

And to penguinbait: What possible use is the so-called "assault weapons"? Store owners during the LA riots paced their rooftops with these weapons after the police abandoned entire sections of the city to the rioters. Millions/billions of dollars in damage were done by rioters.. but these store owners were some of the ONLY stores not touched. During Katrina, people went crazed and panicky, stealing, looting, crime was everywhere.. and the police couldn't even get to the people needing help because of floods..

These are all perfect examples of when you just might need to defend yourself against a very large mob of somewhat psychotics that have lost their sense of perspective. What good is your 72 hour kits, your water and food storage, your emergency preparation kits... when crap finally hits the proverbial FAN someone is just going to break in and steal it from you for themselves?

I know I'm not gonna win any friends by using this word.. but it's still one of my favorites: Zombies!

Not all Zombies are dead.

Ehehe, so I'm not the only one planning exactly what I'm going to do when the zombie apocalypse starts?

You kidding??



And this is relevant too

@tabletrat (post#38 way back on page 4)

Thank you for setting me straight .... I did preface it with IIRC, which obviously I didn't

Did you read about the eight-year-old kid who killed his father and someone else recently? The newspaper said his dad had trained him to use a weapon.

On the other discussion, I am surprised to hear someone say that provisions in the Constitution can override something in an Amendment. Isn't it the other way around? According to the Amendment and the simplistic interpretation urged in this thread, every citizen has a right to carry any arm. Therefore, any prisoner has the right to carry any arm, as long as he is a citizen, it seems to me.

The reason this is untrue is that the Constitution is not a computer program, and Amendments are not subroutines that take control over the main program. The whole Constitution was adopted in a context taken for granted by the adopters, and judges exist to interpret the Constitution in the light of that context. Simplistic interpretations that derive from looking up words in the dictionary and relying on common sense don't apply directly. Judges are respected by the community because what they do is difficult and takes more than a crayon.

http://www.wkowtv.com/Global/story.a...nav=menu1362_2
We can go on all day if you wanna start talking individual instances. Appealing to emotions is rather weak.

I do agree with your last paragraph.. the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the constitution. And they supported the right of the individual to bear arms.

Good or Bad.. there it is in black and white. The only part left to the imagination is what exactly constitutes "common sense" gun control laws.. just like what exactly constitutes "common sense" free speech laws: IE; yelling Fire in a crowded theater.

Usually, prisoners do not keep all their rights while doing time. They e.g. can't vote. It's basically the point of prison: To (temporarily) deprive a convicted criminal of certain of her/his rights, like going where they want to. Taking away their right to bear arms seems minor compared to the rest...

I thought that was pretty much a done case. Yelling "Fire!" for the heck of it in a full house does not fall under the moniker of free speech, as the intention of the yeller is not to communicate, but to cause physical harm.

If I was capable of shouting so loud I could rupture people's eardrums and turn their brains into strawberry jelly, I think anyone'd be hard pressed to call "Free speech!" if I actually did this.