Guns or not Guns

[Aurielius]

I was expanding the logic proposed by WizardOfAtlantis of liberal thinking and gun control. What I have said is my opinion that answers the why a liberal might be for the freedom to posses weapons, only to an extent.

 

I personally wouldn't mind a private fighter jet though, would have to be a harrier, I don't want any speeding tickets when taking off down the street.

FYI..A Harrier only has enough coolant to maintain vertical flight mode for 120 - 180 seconds..so you better be a one shot fast parker. :whistling:

Edited October 8, 2011 by Aurielius

[WizardOfAtlantis]

I think the problem though, is that you are assuming politics has anything to do with Logic. It has been my experience that the two don't even reside in the same universe....... They are all just 'labels' in any event. I am pro-choice, but, I am also pro-gun. What does that make me? A republocrat? A demican?

As for the first part, I really don't think politics has anything to do with logic (just mind control of the masses). Words have meaning, though, and it amazes me that so many (half? more or less) would pride themselves on the definition of a word but not really, fully stick up for what that word means. Freedom is Freedom. Or it isn't.

 

I, too, don't fit the modern dichotomy (or lobotomy as it often seems). {note: the following contains Americanisms as that is my cultural foundation}

I am something of a traditionalist, myself, but I guess that needs defining. I tend to want to choke liberals who "don't want to hurt anybody's feelings", and use that kind of Marxist/communist reasoning to no longer allow Halloween in schools because for example, the practitioners of a certain religion might take offence. Well, you know what? Screw them and the horse they rode in on.

 

This is the United States of America, which is built upon giving everybody a say in what they believe. You want your holiday too? FINE and DANDY. We could use more holidays (real ones). However, you want to say I can't wear, for example, a t-shirt with "A Generic Prophet" on it because it offends your religion? WRONG ("You and your Horse", again). Everybody gets their say and does their thing. That's the way it works and it's the only way it can work, for everybody's sake.

 

There is a plague in the United States, and I'll only mention it because I don't want to go off topic more than I am already, but there is a Racism Plague that is destroying the foundations of free speech and the American Way. Just who in hell thought it up that you can't criticize someone of Jewish ancestry without being called Anti-Semite, or a black man without being Racist, or ...well, I can't think of what you'd be called if you hurt someone's religious feelings....is there a word for that? Now, OF COURSE, I don't mean criticizing someone BECAUSE they are those things (even though that "should" be okay, too) but because said person did something wrong, and then they use the blanket "Racism" defense to make you sound like a Redneck KKK Nazi. Anyway, I'll understand if no one wants to touch that in another thread with a ten-foot keyboard.

 

As for Republicans...boy, sometimes they just need to be whacked up side the head with the 21st century stick to bring them into the new millennium. War on this, war on that, drink all you want but God Forbid you have a joint or get Gay Thoughts....sheesh. Be a little less Puritan, people...

 

It all reminds me of Jim Morrison's saying (and I paraphrase), "I straddle the fence between life and death. And my balls hurt."

 

My problem with gun ownership is that I can see no reason for the sorts of guns that I hear about that are designed more for war and mass destruction than for sport or for simple protection of ones home and individual safety. It just seems to me that the more these types of things are let out of the box the more we have the potential for chaos.

I think a lot of people play those logistical and legislative games (this is allowed vs this isn't) because the law makers themselves started to put restrictions where before there were none. Now, granted, I do believe in restrictions. I don't think people need grenade launchers or heavy-caliber vehicle-mounted machine guns, for example, things that didn't exist even conceptually when the constitution was written. I may want to walk through the Mojave in Fallout: New Vegas with a flame-throwing pistol, but I'm not going to go to the Kwiki Mart with one, either, and I don't want most people to do so either.

 

That is because I think most people are not in control of themselves well enough to handle that responsibility and are incredibly under-trained. I would, however, go into the Kwiki Mart with a good knife, because I know I can subdue, hurt, or kill with equal facility with it, but that is because I am a professional. I would consider carrying a handgun if I could use a type of ceramic bullet I've seen that carries all of the kinetic force of the shot but does not penetrate the flesh (it explodes because it's like compressed powder). Handguns can be equally used to subdue an aggressor, even without shooting the gun in close combat, if you're trained to do so. Very few are, though, even among professionals (martial artists, policemen, bodyguards, et al). Too many people shoot to kill...even "trained" professionals. Chaos does spread when people lose their heads. Killing is a very heavy thing. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/down.gif

 

The whole distinction between hunting vs war weapons is only a modern political convention. Button pushing at its best, and blatantly unconstitutional. I want both, and if I ever get around to buying a new one in the future (which also includes probably living in another country), it will very likely be of the "war" variety. I want a really nice hunting bolt-action, too, but I think...here comes the Terror Phrase...an "Assault Weapon" would be really nice. There is Truth and Purity in an AK-47.

[grannywils]

Wiz, first of all, bless you for the Jim Morrison quote. You are just too wonderful for words.:thumbsup:

 

And second of all, I do not have any quarrel with most of what you said. I'm still a bit (not "on the fence") but concerned about killing weapons abounding in our streets. And for exactly the reasons that you have given. I certainly do not know how to use one; and my guess is that a larger majority than I can imagine who already own them do not really know how to use them. However, as I said in my earlier post, I am a true Liberal, and I really do believe in individual rights, and cannot bring myself to say, "we must not allow......" just because I do not happen to agree with it. However, I also believe in the Constitution, so I watch, and I listen to be sure we have not trodden on it totally in our rush to get whatever it is we want now....

 

As far as the whole political correctness nonsense, yeah, I agree, as long as we are not blatently hurtful to one another, it is totally out of hand. May we all stop for a moment and remember why this nation was created in the first dang place. I will not give a history lesson here. For any of you who are not sure (or don't have the time....), take the time and look it up.

[dazzerfong]

@ WizardOfAtlantis:

 

Your belief of absolute free speech promotes anarchy: some liberalism is needed to preserve this status of relative peace and calm. However, your statements for the second half is valid: the distinction between non-lethal and lethal is blurred today.

 

In my belief, it is ignorance which causes fear, and fear which generates the controversy behind weapons handling. That being said, I believe a mandatory basic firearms handling should be endorsed by the government: basic firearm safety handling, rules, attitudes and whatnot to dispel quite a lot of people's belief that a Remingon 700 or even a Model 44 (beautiful rifle) equals an assault weapon, and that owning the former two does not constitute a present threat to everyone surrounding you.

 

Proper attitudes and respect for firearms I believe is paramount to quelling the misuse and mishandling of firearms, as well as eliminating the social stigma that firearms are to be viewed only as tools of destruction.

[ginnyfizz]

In my belief, it is ignorance which causes fear, and fear which generates the controversy behind weapons handling. That being said, I believe a mandatory basic firearms handling should be endorsed by the government: basic firearm safety handling, rules, attitudes and whatnot to dispel quite a lot of people's belief that a Remingon 700 or even a Model 44 (beautiful rifle) equals an assault weapon, and that owning the former two does not constitute a present threat to everyone surrounding you.

 

Proper attitudes and respect for firearms I believe is paramount to quelling the misuse and mishandling of firearms, as well as eliminating the social stigma that firearms are to be viewed only as tools of destruction.

 

Absolutely agree, Dazzer. Whenever the question of stricter gun control comes up in the UK (as if it isn't over zealous already...), you'll get the TV interviewing average urban man/woman in the street and asking their views and they will whine "Well I can't understand why anyone would want to own a gun anyway, why does anyone need or want one?" Funny they rarely interview sport shooters, farming or country types. Education and training as you describe would help to influence the sort of attitude I described and to remove that social stigma.

[HeyYou]

"assault weapons" are used in less than one percent of gun crime. The brady bill, banning weapons with specific features, (high capacity magazine, folding stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor) came into being after Ronald Reagan was shot by a guy with a .22 caliber REVOLVER. Talk about target exactly the wrong audience...... It was a knee jerk reaction to one crazy man. Stupidity at it's finest. (most of the brady bill has since expired.)

[lukertin]

You know, I wonder, but did you read what I quoted from Thomas Jefferson in my post? I actually went to the source there and played constitutional scholar myself. He very explicitly expected people to not only be able to possess arms, but to be able to carry them around AND use them in self-defense.

 

He was a Founding Father, and therefore his intentions are what is behind the framing of those words (of the amendment), and original intent weighs like a meteorite upon that paper. That's part of the job of a constitutional scholar, as I understand it: defining original intent, as it gives the framework for the words. The color to the black and white, if you will.

Sorry, but Thomas Jefferson is not a founding father, as he was in France the whole time the Constitution was being drafted, and ratified. He gets to claim authorship of the Declaration of Independence and provided some advice to James Madison when the latter was writing the Bill of Rights by himself.

 

James Madison based the Bill of Rights on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which stated "Article XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."

 

This clearly draws on the idea of civilian militia (as well as self-protection, that is implicit in the idea back then because law enforcement was nothing like it is today)

Edited October 9, 2011 by lukertin

[Aurielius]

Sorry, but Thomas Jefferson is not a founding father, as he was in France the whole time the Constitution was being drafted, and ratified. He gets to claim authorship of the Declaration of Independence and provided some advice to James Madison when the latter was writing the Bill of Rights by himself.

Though you are correct about Jefferson's geographical location during the Constitutional Convention I would dispute the contention that Jefferson was not a founding Father.

"Within the large group known as the "Founding Fathers", there are two key subsets: the "Signers of the Declaration of Independence" (who signed the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776) and the Framers of the Constitution (who were delegates to the Federal Convention and took part in framing or drafting the proposed Constitution of the United States). A further subset is the group that signed the Articles of Confederation."

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Sorry, but Thomas Jefferson is not a founding father

I bet a White Belt in Google-fu can prove your rather confusing assertion false in 7 seconds or less.http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/turned.gif How can you not consider Jefferson a Founding Father?....http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/teehee.gif

 

Here's what my 7seconds revealed:

One

 

Two

 

Three

 

and Four.

 

Seems like a founding father to me. I'm not one to just go with the consensus, but it does help at times to make distinctions.

[dazzerfong]

"assault weapons" are used in less than one percent of gun crime. The brady bill, banning weapons with specific features, (high capacity magazine, folding stock, bayonet mount, flash suppressor) came into being after Ronald Reagan was shot by a guy with a .22 caliber REVOLVER. Talk about target exactly the wrong audience...... It was a knee jerk reaction to one crazy man. Stupidity at it's finest. (most of the brady bill has since expired.)

 

You see, technically, assault weapons defines weapons that have (at least in Australia):

 

1. A pistol grip and more than 10 rounds, or:

2. A non-manual-cycling firearm.

 

Using this consensus, I'm pretty sure it covers more than 1% of gun crime in America. Also, your analysis is a bit off.......and that analysis didn't even include automatic weapons.

 

Of course, Brady is a definite example of forceful empathy: there is no doubt, he only did all those things AFTER he was shot, not before. It's akin to opening someone's eyes to something to see it clearer. BUT, the Brady Bill did not outright ban anything, it just required background checks before purchasing weapons. It was not because the weapon was an assault weapon or whatever, but because Reagan's attacker was mentally defective. To this bill, I have no problems with that. Henceforth, knee-jerk it is, but not stupidity.

 

"Article XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power."

 

I'm very sure no-one is actually going to attack any of you, and even under such circumstances, ownership of firearms just further promotes the concept of anarchy. There's a reason why the police was formed: to eliminate this need.

Edited October 10, 2011 by dazzerfong