Do groups want to ban all guns?

[azdesertrhino]

There are definately groups that want to ban all guns. Below is a quote from one site. I'm not sure if they are being sarcastic or this is actually what they believe.

Self-defense
Perhaps the most common justification is that of "self-defense." Rather than relying on our highly trained police force, these people believe in some sort of vigilante justice, not unlike cowboys and robbers in the old west. Books such as More Guns, Less Crime argue for this.

Suppose a person breaks into your house at night and attacks you with a knife. Now, according to the right-wing point of view, you would be justified in shooting him with the gun you keep hidden under your pillow.

However, it is impossible to truly understand the circumstances leading up to this person's breaking into your house. Perhaps he is a minority. Maybe he was made fun of in school for being a homosexual. He is probably poor. Knowing these facts, how can you, an upper middle class exploiter, be justified in ending this man's life? The answer is: you can't.

In fact this man is homeless and was merely looking for some food to feed his starving family. By killing him in so-called self-defense you are no better than a common murderer.


http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.11.6.21654.1217.html

Another group that want all guns gone. First a quote from their site.

We, the people, therefore call upon you, our elected representatives, to enact legislation to remove all guns and firearms from private ownership. We, the people, call upon you, our elected representatives, to enact laws to:

http://www.goodbyeguns.org/

I'm sure there are many more. The anti-gun groups are well funded and very vocal.

[1eagle]

I am sure their is more groups than we want to now about. I read about this stuff in my American Rifelman mag. every month. Thanks for the info.

[xFallen]

There are definately groups that want to ban all guns. Below is a quote from one site. I'm not sure if they are being sarcastic or this is actually what they believe.

Self-defense
Perhaps the most common justification is that of "self-defense." Rather than relying on our highly trained police force, these people believe in some sort of vigilante justice, not unlike cowboys and robbers in the old west. Books such as More Guns, Less Crime argue for this.

Suppose a person breaks into your house at night and attacks you with a knife. Now, according to the right-wing point of view, you would be justified in shooting him with the gun you keep hidden under your pillow.

However, it is impossible to truly understand the circumstances leading up to this person's breaking into your house. Perhaps he is a minority. Maybe he was made fun of in school for being a homosexual. He is probably poor. Knowing these facts, how can you, an upper middle class exploiter, be justified in ending this man's life? The answer is: you can't.

In fact this man is homeless and was merely looking for some food to feed his starving family. By killing him in so-called self-defense you are no better than a common murderer.


http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.11.6.21654.1217.html

Another group that want all guns gone. First a quote from their site.

We, the people, therefore call upon you, our elected representatives, to enact legislation to remove all guns and firearms from private ownership. We, the people, call upon you, our elected representatives, to enact laws to:

http://www.goodbyeguns.org/

I'm sure there are many more. The anti-gun groups are well funded and very vocal.

That looks like a joke, but I am sure it isn't. It looks like something you'd see as a parody on The Daily Show or something. The way the article is worded has me thinking the writer is either very young physically or emotionally, or perhaps not particularly intelligent.


Barry

[azdesertrhino]

That looks like a joke, but I am sure it isn't. It looks like something you'd see as a parody on The Daily Show or something. The way the article is worded has me thinking the writer is either very young physically or emotionally, or perhaps not particularly intelligent.


Barry

When I first saw the site I thought they were being sarcastic, then I looked at some other articles on the same site. Same type of garbage!

[xFallen]

When I first saw the site I thought they were being sarcastic, then I looked at some other articles on the same site. Same type of garbage!

I had a big long message but decided to scrap it. The bottom line is that the sort of myopic and poorly reasoned thinking present at that site is typical of those who refuse to accept accountability for their own existence. They are also usually the ones who do not understand what freedom really means. In my mind the issue is broader than just guns.


Barry

[Barker]

"A child could accidently swallow a shotgun shell." Now there's something we should all be worried about!! :)

[azdesertrhino]

"A child could accidently swallow a shotgun shell." Now there's something we should all be worried about!! :)


:D :D :D It must happen all the time!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Allen]

I bet not a single one of these nuts has ever needed a gun! I have! And I was lucky enough to have one! 8 years ago a man broke into my house. He was helping himself to my hard earned possesions when my dog caught up with him. I heard the noises and grabbed my gun and phone. I found him in the corner of my game room up against the wall, dog biting at his legs. He was just about to plunge a large knife into my dog so I fired at him, hitting him in the shoulder. I called 911 and told them I had shot an intruder in my house. The cops came quick! The cops were pissed that I had used a gun! They were going to take my gun and arrest me too! Then the radio call came in identifying the intruder. He was wanted in NY for 2 counts gang related murder and was to be considerd armed and dangerous. The cops dropped the "you shouldnt shoot an intruder" attitude and went to the "your lucky you could protect yourself" story. No charges were ever brought against me and they never took my gun!

I have several guns, and plan on keeping them!

[Special K]

If you want to know how bad it can really get research Australia's gun laws. Even police officers aren't allowed to take their guns home with them unless they get special permission from the chief of police. Image a crazy with a shotgun on the loose and even the off-duty cops don't have guns. They have to get special permits just to buy a pellet gun!

In some countries there is no self defense justification for killing someone that comes in your home and threatens your life.

[azdesertrhino]

And I am sure there are groups that advocate the opposite...that we should have the right to own bazookas.

I'm beginning to believe by the tone of your posts that you really don't support gun ownership or the 2nd amendment, but that's your right.

I believe Class 3 firearms ownership might cover bazookas! :D

The problem is the people you have to worry about owning them don't go through the legal channels, like any other weapon.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00005845----000-.html


(f) Destructive device
The term “destructive device” means
(1) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas
(A) bomb,
(B) grenade,
(C) rocket having a propellent charge of more than four ounces,
(D) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(E) mine, or
(F) similar device;

[RokNRich]

Maybe you are just a troll ?

[My1stJeep]

I am still waiting for any justification for a regulation on hand guns?

I would say OIIIIO is not against guns as he owns some, but here is your chance to say why some of the current guns should have more regulation.

Keep in mind all the stats that have shown that hand gun ownership is up, while deaths are down.

Also that the gun does not cause the death, it is the human interaction pulling the trigger, therefore the mindset of the person pulling the trigger that makes it happen.

And a recent comment "In my eyes, the stories point more toward a failure in parenting then to a failure in gun laws."

Here is an opportunity to give us some information for us to understand your point of view, we may not agree, but a good chance to shed some light.

My thought is, our opposition says leave to those trained? Sure, maybe if the intruder is in a mobil unit or needs a walker I can call 911 and they can get there before the intruder kills me. That argument does not hold up, it puts the victim in even more danger.

Now for home protection I see a shotgun as a better weapon. JMO Reason being, if I shoot an intruder with say a .45, the bullet can go through his body, exit, throught the wall board and into a loved one in the next room. If you miss it will have no problem getting though the wall board into the next room and into a loved one. Is that a concern, to me yes. However the use of hollow points will make it less likely to through into the next room and into your loved one, and more affective toward stopping the criminal. In addition I don't think just having the shotgun is perfect, according to law you only have 3 shell loaded, so 3 shots you are done, having a hand gun back up is a good idea in my opinion.

[azdesertrhino]

Damn right that would be my right, however...

How can I not support gun ownership? I am a gun owner!

Ohh..I see, because I don't own a handgun, I am against the second amendment.

No wait, because I am concerned that IDIOTS with guns allow their children access, or fail to teach them about gun safety results in accidents, I am against the second amendment....

NO WAIT! I've got it. Since I have suggested that REGULATION is far different from an outright BAN, I am against the second amendment?

Which is it? Because I fail to see the foundation in your accusation.

I read the 2nd amendment again and didn't see anything about regulation or banned, I did see the part about "shall not be infringed".

Other than that, just the general tone of your posts and statements.

[azdesertrhino]

Ahh...but you easily forget the regulations on freedom of speech though...Let me refresh your memory of that amendment...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Yet, certain forms of speech are indeed against the law...thus speech is regulated...

You kind of lost me there. Where is freedom of speech against the law? Maybe I'm just not on the same page as you right now.

[treeofliberty]

There is a reason why you'll not find much support for regulation and registration here. Nearly every gun confiscation has been preceeded by registration. The Jews in 1930's German, the Aussies, and even Californians owning some assault-style rifles. Each group was promised that it was "only registration".

No personal weapons should be regulated, period. Regulation has nearly zero impact on those inclined to commit crime. Look at the most horrific crimes in U.S. history. They weren't commited with guns, but rather flammables and explosives. Everybody thinks that criminals will resort to lesser weapons if denied a gun. Some may, while others will escalate. There is no orderly way to reduce only criminal-owned weapons.

The solution to criminal intent is the risk of a violent end.

[TRobertsRN]

"Why NOT let people own bazookas or military style weapons? Why not?"


With regulation people can own these weapons.

One of the ironys of the assault weapons ban was my worry about my rifle. I was concerned that I would not be able to replace it in the future. To my suprise it was not considered an asault rifle under the law.

A USMC issue M1 Grande. It made me laugh. I would have thought this would at least make the top 10 of the list that the anti gun folks would want off the market.

On another note someone mentioned the shot gun limited to 3 shots. I own a 12 riot gun. Without the plug more than three shots for a house gun. Just remember to put the plug back in before you go hunting anything that dosen't walk on two legs.

[TRobertsRN]

"Why should we regulate military style weapons and not handguns?"


I don't think military weapons should be regulated either. OK machine guns an bazokas I can understand. But not other weapons that were considered assault weapons when they were banned. I mentioned before the irony of my M1 not being banned, by those definitions many deer rifles were. Although I have used the M1 for deer hunting its intended use is to hunt people. Who remembers what made a weapon an assault rifle or not? The quote above if accepted would in my opinion eventually change if we gave that ground. "Why should we regulate handguns and not hunting rifles?" "Why should we regulate hunting weapons and not all guns?". These are the stated goals of anti gun groups. A step at a time.

I will stand my ground. I won't give an inch. I will not go gently into that good night.

[TRobertsRN]

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

Why should we regulate military style weapons?

WOW, talk about out of context. Your point was "Why should we regulate military style weapons and not handguns"? I took your point to be in favor of hand gun regulation as I have taken all of your previous comments. The point of my reply was that military weapons being regulated was no excuse to regulate hand guns.

I my opinion machine guns and bazokas are not for hunting of animals or self protection. It makes sense to me that they are regulated. I have friends and family who own these weapons. I personally don't care to collect them. In fact I am the type of person who collects nothing. The phrase what part of shall not be infringed has frequently been used against your arguements on this forum. I am supprised to see it used against me.

I guess you are determining where I draw the line on regulation. I guess machine guns and bazokas would be the line. It took me some time to conclude that you draw the line at handguns.

[TRobertsRN]

I never said handguns should be the line. That was the topic of the forum. I am merely asking the question:

Why shouldn't it be? And so I continue...

Machine guns are NOT for self-protection? Your kidding right? What about the ability to defend my family from my own government? They have machine guns, why shouldn't I? That was what the founding father's had in mind right?

Thus the question...Why shouldn't military arms be legal?

I am confused, I just don't get you. Have you just been playing devils avocate in all the questions you ask and coments and arguements you make?

The topic of this forum is, "Do groups want to ban all guns?" You changed it to not "Thus the question...Why shouldn't military arms be legal?" but "Why should we regulate military style weapons and not handguns"? Making me believe you are in favor of regulating handguns. I saw you as using the regulation of military weapons as an excuse to regulate handguns. Am I incorrect in this?

I am a firm believer in what Jefferson said about the public having the right to defend themselves not just from individuals but from their own government by means of arms.

More specifically I am not in favor or any new regulations on guns. I believe I would be wasting my time attempting to eliminate regulation of automatic weapons and bazokas. Do I believe I should be able to own them without regulation, yes. Do I think I could convince the general public about that, no. Do I believe that regulation of military weapons makes it OK to regulate hand guns, no.

By your last message it seems we are very much on the same page. I did not get that from any of your other posts.

[jeepboy]

I just want want to put in my .02.

I just think its funny how the Government hands out the most powerful guns to 18-19 year old kids, along with the most capable $200,000 offroad vehicles with the latest and most advanced computers, and drops them off in the middle of the largest sand dunes in the world and says kill anything that trys to kill you. Buuuut, they b!@$# and complain if you fire your own gun at an intruder for the safety of you and your family (or dog ;) ), until they find out that the intruder was a criminal. The government needs to re-evaluate a few things (not the Military side :D ).

I understand A LITTLE restriction on guns, I may not like it, or agree with it but I still understand why. But to completely ban certain guns is taking it way too far. 0% restriction is better than 100% restriction in my book. This country is getting way too prude with guns

I have the greatest and utmost respect for the soldiers who defend our country, but if you cant (like me), or wont join the military for any reason than you not only have the right, but the duty to defend your country at home in whatever way possible whether it be with a knife, handgun, shotgun, or bazooka.

Again, just my .02

[treeofliberty]

What consitutes a 'personal weapon'? Would my 9mm Berretta be a personal weapon? Would my father's 30 Carbine be a personal weapon?

I think this is pretty self-explanitory. If a man can carry it and fire it himself, it's a personal weapon. Crew-serviced weaponry is not a personal weapon.

What I'm trying to avoid here is the rediculous exageration that I'm for unregulated nukes.

I'll state it again. If it can be used to defend yourself against criminals or tyranny, it should not be regulated, at all. No NFA. No restrictions on barrel length, full auto, surpressed... nothing.

[Antman]

Your right, the thread started out asking that very question; do groups want to ban all guns? However, My1stJeep called me out on the current desire to ban handguns. Since handguns do not represent arms soley, I do not consider it a ban of all guns, but regulation of some guns. The argument quickly took on a slippery slope from the gun advocate point of view...I wanted to first and formost lay that argument to rest...

However, upon further reflection I wanted to know why handguns shouldn't be banned. We ban military weapons, why not handguns? How do we draw these lines, and how much regulation is too much? The 2nd amendment says nothing about the type of arms Americans should be able to own...maybe that is why there is regulation in the first place? Not sure.

So why not push the discussion along a bit with a some talk on why be currently ban some guns, but not others? What is the rationale for banning .50 calibur machine guns and M-16's, but not handguns?

Strong gun advocates like to use the 'shall not be infringed' argument regularly, and I was curious if I could 'put it back on them' by challenging regulation they already accept, i.e. military weapons.

I wanted to flesh out WHY you accept those regulations, and see if it can be extended to handguns logically. However, you never really answered WHY military weapons are banned, and so the ball never really got rolling...

But I think it is a good question...call it curiousity.

I thought it was turning out to be a nice discussion.



You want to know why machine guns and military weapons are banned?

Most are not BANNED, but require a special permit or class 3 stamp. This was started to keep the crooks from having more fire power thatn the cops. Did it work? I doubt it. Like all rules or laws, the crooks just ignore them, and go their way. Meanwhile us law abiding citzens have to pass a background check and pay for a $200 exempt stamp to own a machinegun. So, you see, your 50 cal machinegun isnt BANNED, neither are most other military firearms. I have owned M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, 03 Springfields, SKS, M1A1 .45 Autos and other military weapons in my years of shooting.

[TRobertsRN]

With the proper paper work yes you can. Or you can just break the law and purchase illegally or steal one. Or even make your own. In fact a bazoka or grenade launcher would be much easier to make than a handgun.