I see that this thread has gotten a little heated. I agree with what you are saying about the WMD, but I need to point out one thing. This is the ZA we are talking about here, and in the ZA the most important "arms" to bear are convenient, purposful, and get the job done...

 

We argue about gun laws here, of course, but because gun ownership isn't a right, the conversation doesn't turn as heated and personal as is does for Americans, and we don't have a "gun culture" to the same extent. Objectively, I can totally understand being upset about the thought of having one's rights taken away. But the tone of gun debates seems foreign and fascinating to me. We think we're pretty much the same as Americans until a topic like this comes up.

 

Gun ownership is a right in the United States. It's protected by the United States Constitution via the 2nd Amendment.

This is exactly the reason it's a huge difference that non-American's might miss, because in our country it is a right. It's a fundamental right, protected by a document considered sacred in our country.

This is why foreigners sometimes get confused and think it's about hunting or self-defense or target shooting, its not. It's about a fundamental constitutionally protected freedom, the same as freedom of speech or freedom of religion.

 

mfinley... In your opinion is there anything that could, or should, be done to reduce the level of harm that guns have and will have on society AND not trample over constitutional rights?

I have absolutely no problem what so ever with "responsible" gun ownership, but what does "responsible" actually mean?

I believe that irresponsible gun owners should not have access to any firearms, do you think it would be constitutional for the State or Federal government to determine what responsible gun ownership look likes? Insist on a gun safe, insist on training etc.

 

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. Gun ownership isn't a right here, where I am posting, in Canada. It's a privilege here, as opposed to it being a right in the States. So the conversations around guns and gun laws here are quite different in that people can usually disagree with each other or be critical of the laws without taking it all so personally.

Non-Americans are well aware of the existence of your Second Amendment rights; it's a huge distinction that's difficult to miss, trust me. But yes, all of the specific laws about which types of guns you can own or carry in different circumstances and the debates around such can be pretty confusing to outsiders.

 

Honestly, it's not surprising that you only looked at liberals for this. Don't much care to look at the hypocrisy of those on your side of the spectrum, eh? Are you able to look at things objectively and see that hypocrisy comes from everyone, including conservatives? Do you see any issue with conservatives crying out for the sanctity of human life, and then support guns? Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. It's completely non-partisan.

It's too bad that you are resorting to bashing the people you are arguing with. Do you honestly assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be very young, and have never had your viewpoint presented to them? I mean, your viewpoints aren't exactly unique. It just sounds silly for you to say that someone with a liberal viewpoint must only being doing that because they're trying to look cool around their friends.

Also, "gun-grabber" may just be the dumbest term I've heard so far this year. "Dem liberals are tryin to grab mah guns! Git em!"

 

It completely boggles my mind that someone could actually defend a right that causes the deaths of innocent people every day, when there is seemingly no benefit of said right. Tell me, do you think there should be ANY limit to gun ownership, or, to use an extreme example, should a felon who was incarcerated for violent crimes be able to buy an automatic when he gets out of prison after 20 years?

 

Yes, roll back the thousands of state level restrictions and nannyisms that already infringe on this constitutional right.

Responsible any can easily be defined as -"Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins." no more difficult than that.

I've never met an irresponsible gun owner unless you're talking about a criminal who uses a gun to strike someone else's liberty. No, no training requirement, no nothing. It's a right not to be infringed upon, very cut and dry. That cut and dry is what kills the liberals because they must infringe on everything. In 2012 between local, state and federal over 40,000 new laws were passed. How f'd up is the United States of America if we really need 40,000 new restrictions and/or further refinements of existing restrictions upon our lives??? Obama cursed the Congress as being the least effective Congress in history, his reason? Because they had passed the least amount of new laws in 20 years. Bravo to them, that's what I expect from good government. We don't measure good government by a quota of laws passed with no yard stick of them being useful laws or just a number to meet a quota to show they are working hard. In 1986 when they passed the Tax Reform Act of 1986 it's purpose was to simply the tax code - it was 800 pages! Anybody get the irony in that?

 

You obviously only tune into news that fits your premise, you must miss things like this...

Read some of this before you just dismiss it because you've been brain washed by your parents and your friends to say what you do without knowing the facts.

 

Want me to go on?

>>>>>>>>>>>

 

This is exactly it, with many of them. They refuse to even sculpt the idea of drawing a line, because they see any line as a slippery slope to 'they're coming to take my guns away'. Not only speaking of things like grenade launchers and flame throwers, but think about what kinds of technology we might have in 20, 50, 80 years, that falls under the blanket term 'firearm'. The staunch 2nd Amendment defenders will claim it is their right to own all that stuff. They will claim the 2nd Amendment is 'perfect' and that it covers whatever comes along. Most reasonable people understand that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Should that line be more lenient than the one the administration is trying to implement now? Maybe. I don't know. But I know it has to be drawn. And no matter where it ends up being drawn, there will always be the mfinley's of the world screaming that the next step is 'gun grabbing'.

 

It would be just as easy to post headlines showing the other side of the spectrum. Can you reply to what I said earlier: "Tell me, do you think there should be ANY limit to gun ownership, or, to use an extreme example, should a felon who was incarcerated for violent crimes be able to buy an automatic when he gets out of prison after 20 years?"

Ahh, Republicans. I never know if they're more stupid, or evil. Wait... poor Republicans: stupid. Rich Republicans: evil.

 

Was he let out of prison or did he escape?

You do realize that when you're let out of prison you're supposed to have served your sentence and be reformed right? You forgot that prison reforms and all mandates that allow prisoners out of prison early are based on democrats and the ACLU fighting for the rights of prisoners. So in our system when you've done your time you're supposed to start fresh and be given the same opportunities as everyone else is that not correct? You're not suggesting to trample an ex-cons rights are you? You're not suggesting discrimination against someone who just made a mistake are you? Dang what next, are you going to suggest that illegal aliens shouldn't be allowed in our country? That they aren't just trying to make a better life, that they are taking the jobs that Americans don't want? LOL

 

[video=youtube;I79wUEqBdQc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I79wUEqBdQc[/video]

Careful now. Without Republicans who would be working to provide the tax money to give liberals, free healthcare, welfare, food stamps, free Obama cell phones, 99 months of unemployment, free Obama money and all of the rest of the things you enjoy and don't have to pay for?

 

You mean the headlines that would be the opposite of the ones I posted...

Instead of this one

After liberals ban firearms from citizens of the country you could instead post a headline like this one

Those most be the headlines you're referring to

 

This thread has become pretty much circular, so here is one of my previous posts, with a few edits.

*******************************************************************

The basic purpose of the second amendment is a military one. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that officers of the militia were to be appointed by the states. Alexander Hamilton emphasized this point in Federalist 29. This pretty much puts the kibosh on whether individuals can use firearms for any whim they feel entitled to.


The great thing about DC v. Heller is that it tossed a bone to both sides. The court held--in a decision written by right-wing justice Antonin Scalia--that the first and second clauses of the second amendment were tied together. This is no small matter, as there are numerous pro-second amendment types who argue that the two clauses had two different purposes--that the first clause was just there to establish "well-regulated militia". Scalia held that the primary purpose of the second clause was for the keeping of firearms by individuals for military purposes.


However, Scalia also wrote that the first clause did not fully limit the second clause, and that individuals had the right to keep and bear firearms for their own personal protection within their homes.


Beyond that, Scalia also wrote that individuals had the right to bear arms in accordance with the traditional practices of society (like hunting), but that government had the right to establish "reasonable" regulations on gun ownership and usage. In other words, there is ambiguity. There is no clearly court-defined interpretation for the bearing of firearms outside of the home.


In general, I try to avoid debates on what constitutes "reasonable" gun regulation. This is because the pro-second amendment types are hard to pin down on where they think the line should be. They will quote certain founding fathers and rail against those who favor stricter gun control laws. But try getting them to opine on where the limits are, and they usually avoid the question. Since there is no point in discussing the drawing of lines with people who won't draw them, I usually limit myself to discussing what the founding fathers wrote in the Constitution--the whole Constitution, not just the second clause of the second amendment. Plus Heller, which I find to be an inspired decision.

 

Huh, you're right. After... how many times asking, this is what we're seeing. I think what bothers me the most about this is that, while many on the left are willing to compromise (background checks, restrictions on larger firearms vs a universal ban on guns), I often see the right utterly unwilling to budge even an inch.

I will say that I should take back what I said earlier, that no apparent good comes from the current legal status of guns. I do believe, though, that the bad outweighs the good. It's frustrating to see the other side unwilling to even acknowledge that there IS a bad side at all.