Gun Rights Argument

[okalb 96]

I know there have been many gun threads on here over the years, but in this case I am looking to make sure I am on the right page with this argument. I am all for gun rights, I own guns myself and I am actually heading to the range later today.

Many of the supporters of gun rights feel that the constitution guarantees them the right to own any weapons they choose. They feel that owning a gun should not be a crime. If someone commits a crime using a gun, they should be prosecuted for the crime that they committed. They should not be treated like a criminal just for owning a gun despite the fact that others in the past (most likely more in the future) have used guns to commit all sorts of various crimes. That is pretty much the gist pro gun side of the argument is it not?

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[scruffy 0]

I would amend your argument slightly by removing the whole bit about any weapon they choose, I think many gun rights supporters understand just like the other freedoms granted by the bill of rights the second amendment is not unlimited.

Peace, love and hoppiness

[wolfriverjoe 1,460]

Yes, that's the short version of the argument.
Although it's more of the argument against gun control than the argument for gun rights.

It's the "Don't punish me for the actions of others" argument.

And there are lots of side arguments and tangents.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[okalb 96]

Quote

I think many gun rights supporters understand just like the other freedoms granted by the bill of rights the second amendment is not unlimited.

Actually, that is not the argument that I usually hear. Especially when there are proposed bans on things like assault weapons. Those that do feel that it is not unlimited seem to always think the line should be drawn right behind or below their weapon of choice.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[kallend 1,822]

I do not think that convicted felons or mentally ill people should have a right to a gun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Quote

I think many gun rights supporters understand just like the other freedoms granted by the bill of rights the second amendment is not unlimited.

Actually, that is not the argument that I usually hear. Especially when there are proposed bans on things like assault weapons. Those that do feel that it is not unlimited seem to always think the line should be drawn right behind or below their weapon of choice.

Unfortunately much of the justification to ban "assault weapons" are only because the weapon looks scary. There are several hunting specific rifles that are more powerful than an AR-15 but those hunting rifles don't look as scary.

Quote

An assault rifle is defined as a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

Quote

A selective fire firearm fires semi–automatically and at least one automatic mode by means of a selector depending on the weapon's design.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1981 to 1988 is 7 years-Kallend (oops, it's actually 8 years Kallend)

The decade of the 80's was from 1980 to 1989. 10 years. If you remove 1980 and 1989 you have 1981 to 1988. 8 years.

[regulator 0]

I completely agree with that statement...although it might be hard to determine which people are mentally ill (very obviously) and those who are ill (deep down that project looking normal on the outside) I am not a gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. However my father is an ex-army officer and has served in Korea. I have inherited several weapons early (he's still alive and kickin') but like the M1-Carbine he gave me...if some gun control nut tried taking it away from me...just cause some other nut job killed someone else with a gun...well even though I've only shot it a few times (saving my ammo for armageddon when I'll have to protect my family) but in any case...the person who attempts to take away my gun rights will have a serious battle on their hands.

[okalb 96]

Quote

Yes, that's the short version of the argument.

So then I can assume that this is how most of the "Gun Nuts" feel when you boil it down?

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

They feel that owning a gun should not be a crime. If someone commits a crime using a gun, they should be prosecuted for the crime that they committed.

No, the long running stance of the NRA has supported sentencing enhancements for convictions of crimes involving the use of guns. Having a gun is a right, and should include conceal carry. But not using it with criminal intent to harm others.

It seems like you're trying to create some sort of trap or inconsistency, esp given your last post "So I can assume...." Why not save us the time and get to the point?

[okalb 96]

Quote

It seems like you're trying to create some sort of trap or inconsistency, esp given your last post "So I can assume...." Why not save us the time and get to the point?

You are sort of correct, I am trying to point out an inconsistency but it is not really meant for this thread. I wanted to make sure that I understand the argument before I draw parallels to anything else.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[dgskydive 0]

Not trying to high jack your thread Oren.

Just think it is funny that the same people on here that want to take away your right to bear arms. Are the same ones that are upset that people dont want a Mosque built near Ground Zero.

So its ok to want to take away your constitutional rights, but it is not fair to want them to build a Mosque in another location. No one is even saying they shouldnt or cant build it. Just move it.

Back to Guns now.

Dom

[okalb 96]

Quote

So its ok to want to take away your constitutional rights, but it is not fair to want them to build a Mosque in another location. No one is even saying they shouldnt or cant build it. Just move it.

Back to Guns now.

Actually Dom, you got the exact opposite of the point I was going to make. If I change a few words from my original post look how it reads.

Many of the supporters of Muslim rights feel that the constitution guarantees them the right to practice any religion they choose. They feel that practicing their religion when and where they choose should not be a crime. If someone commits a crime over their religion, they should be prosecuted for the crime that they committed. They should not be treated like a criminal just for being a Muslim despite the fact that others in the past (most likely more in the future) have used religion to justify committing all sorts of various crimes. That is pretty much the gist pro freedom side of the argument is it not?

We can even take it a step further and add in the fact that like assualt weapons, Muslims look scary.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[wolfriverjoe 1,460]

Quote

Quote

Yes, that's the short version of the argument.

So then I can assume that this is how most of the "Gun Nuts" feel when you boil it down?

I don't really know. I can't speak for "most" of them. There are a lot out there (something like 49% of the people in the US) and to say that most of them feel one way or another is a bit of a reach.

And boiling it down to one simple statement is not really practical either. There's the right to self defense, the personal responibility/accountability argument, the relying on someone/something that isn't required to/isn't able to help, the blaming inantimate objects for the actions of those that wield them and on and on.

It's a very complex argument. It isn't made any less so when both sides (IMO the anti-gun crowd more that the pro gun by a wide margin) bend facts, use half truths and even outright lies to support their cases.

But, to answer your question - Yes.
Most gun nuts that I know (along with the saner "firearms enthusiasts", "competitive shooters" and "hunters") will often make a statement along the lines of "We don't ban cars because some people kill other people with them, whether because they were drunk, angry, distracted or just plain stupid. We punish the drivers."

Edit to add:

You made more posts while I was composing my answer.
Your post 12 taking the argument so far as comparing Muslims to Military style semi-auto rifles (they aren't "Assault Rifles") is pretty good.

And not everyone who wants to maintain the right of self-defense wants to infringe on the rights of anyone to peacefully practice their religion.

But it is odd how many (on both sides of the political spectrum) pick and choose which rights they want to support.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[dgskydive 0]

Sneaky bastard.

But my point still stands. Those that want to take away your right to bear arms. ARE the ones that call people racist for wanting them to move the Mosque. I guess its ok to take away your rights as long as it fits there way of thinking.

Dom

[okalb 96]

Quote

Sneaky bastard.

But my point still stands. Those that want to take away your right to bear arms. ARE the ones that call people racist for wanting them to move the Mosque. I guess its ok to take away your rights as long as it fits there way of thinking.

And I don't agree with those people EITHER.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[billvon 2,716]

>Those that want to take away your right to bear arms. ARE the ones that call
>people racist for wanting them to move the Mosque.

Are you thinking of people here, or in the media?

[dgskydive 0]

Here and in the Media

Dom

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It seems like you're trying to create some sort of trap or inconsistency, esp given your last post "So I can assume...." Why not save us the time and get to the point?

You are sort of correct, I am trying to point out an inconsistency but it is not really meant for this thread. I wanted to make sure that I understand the argument before I draw parallels to anything else.

I've been hitting JohnRich for this inconsistency since early yesterday. It's really not necessary to have a vague thread topic to gather the information to make the tie in.

The proper answer is that we should have free speech, free ability to practice religion, free use of our private property, and the right to purchase weapons. Yes, many people here and elsewhere like to pick and choose.

[billvon 2,716]

>Here and in the Media

Who has done that here?

[skyrider 0]

Quote

I do not think that convicted felons or mentally ill people should have a right to a gun.

Convicted Felon, is TOOO broad of a brush too!

My cousin, rightfully convicted for drunk driving back in 79, served his time, and now can not hunt, (his hobby and main form of putting food on teh table before that faithful night)

Why take away his guns, take away his car...yes...(BTW, he has not touched another drop since that day!) And nobody else was involved, other than a tree..

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I do not think that convicted felons or mentally ill people should have a right to a gun.

Convicted Felon, is TOOO broad of a brush too!

My cousin, rightfully convicted for drunk driving back in 79, served his time, and now can not hunt, (his hobby and main form of putting food on teh table before that faithful night)

Why take away his guns, take away his car...yes...(BTW, he has not touched another drop since that day!) And nobody else was involved, other than a tree..

That only a tree was involved is a matter of good luck by those around him, not his intent. If he can't be trusted with a car, why is a gun better?

Given how lax DUI laws remain today, it's a bit surprising that he got a felony conviction in 1979 with no other injured parties. His recourse is to have it expunged now, or to petition for restoration of rights.

[billvon 2,716]

>Why take away his guns, take away his car...

A drunk who is dangerously reckless with a car can be even more dangerously reckless with a gun.

If it was just being pulled over for being a bit over the limit, I can see it not affecting his right to use a gun. If he injured or killed people with his car while drunk, then no reason to let him try to do that again with another, more dangerous piece of machinery.

[kallend 1,822]

Quote

Here and in the Media

So who are these people here that want to take away your rights??

I only want to take way your right if you are a convicted felon or a looney. Are you either of those?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,822]

Quote

Quote

I do not think that convicted felons or mentally ill people should have a right to a gun.

Convicted Felon, is TOOO broad of a brush too!

My cousin, rightfully convicted for drunk driving back in 79, served his time, and now can not hunt, (his hobby and main form of putting food on teh table before that faithful night)

.

Anti-social actions have consequences. Anyone killed by a drunk driver stays dead for ever. I have zero sympathy for your cousin or any DUI.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[freefal 0]

Back to the original topic of first amendment vs second amendment rights... It's a very interesting argument to replace "guns" with Muslims" in the original statement. What if we replaced "Muslim" with "Christian" or for that matter "religon"?

We can''t have our cake and eat it to. ‘Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty.'

"Ignorance is bliss" and "Patience is a virtue"... So if you're stupid and don't mind waiting around for a while, I guess you can have a pretty good life!