The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 7:52am

I never said "all weapons legal" Mom.  I said those personal weapons suitable for militia service.  That doesn't mean everything

Now let's say our own government decides to attack its citizens for whatever slippery slope argument fits for the day, wouldn't they have an advantage because they have (oh let's say) stinger missles or better yet nuclear weapons?

Not really, for several reasons.  First, the government wouldn't likely use nuclear weapons due to the damage they would do to the very infrastructure of the country.  Scorched earth wouldn't benefit the government as there would be nothing left to govern in such area's, nor the industrial/agricultural resources remaining necessary to a modern society.  Such weapons would do as much damage to the governments interests as anyone elses.  Second, depending on exact circumstances there's no telling how much of the military would be willing to support the federal government.  It's possible, again, depending on the circumstances, that the military would judge the government unworthy of their support and service.

 Having a fully automatic weapon is not going to help you against a govenrment attack.

Really?  Based on your broad military experience and historical evidence of the ineffectiveness of such weapons?

Damage was done to those in CT from a weapon that used a high capacity magazine. Time to outlaw them.

Whether a high-capacity magazine or multiple small-capacity magazines, the weapon is blameless.  It's not time to outlaw them or any other personal weapon based on the illegal actions of the few.  By your reasoning we should also outlaw alcohol and any other legal product which can lead to the deaths of innocent individuals.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Fri, 02-08-2013 - 11:36pm

More faulty logic.  Registration is a "no go" because you say "while confiscation doesn't aways follow registration, registration is a necessary precursor to any confiscation." 

Who came up with that logic?  Someone left over from the Red Scare or perhaps it dates back to that time in history saying that if our government wanted to take over its citizens in the US, our government has weapons far superior to assault weapons so the paranoid can put away their fire arms.  Plus, it is untrue that registration is a necessary precursor to "any" confiscation.  No it's not.  Remember in Nazi Germany the government confiscated many items that were not registrated,  as it is also true that many people register things everyday that are not confiscated by the government.  It time to have logical gun control laws!

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Fri, 02-08-2013 - 11:12pm

Well let me state that again, certain types of weapons are NOT necessary  for any reasonable explanation including your argument that we should have all weapons legal to fight ones own war saying that the US has the most powerful lethal weapons available to mankind.  Now let's say our own government decides to attack its citizens for whatever slippery slope argument fits for the day, wouldn't they have an advantage because they have (oh let's say) stinger missles or better yet nuclear weapons?  Unless of course you argue you should have those too?  Plain bizarre.  Having a fully automatic weapon is not going to help you against a govenrment attack.  Citizens having military weapons certainly could massacre other citizens.  Damage was done to those in CT from a weapon that used a high capacity magazine.  Time to outlaw them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Fri, 02-08-2013 - 7:32pm

There are restrictions on firearms Mom, on both the purchase and possession of them.  But registration is a no-go.  While confiscation doesn't always follow registration, registration is a necessary precursor to any confiscations.  Registration presents an unacceptable risk to firearms ownership, especially in the current political climate.

Retrictions for criminals makes logical sense and also certain types of weapons are NOT necessary for any reasonable explanation and therefore there is no reason to have then legalized.

There's a Supreme Court ruling on the subject, several actually, but one in particular is worth noting here, US v. Miller.  That court, in addressing the issue of a sawed-off shotgun, stated the following...

"In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

So, they found no evidence (Miller was actually dead by then and no arguments supporting his claim was presented) that the shotgun in question had a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of the militia, and so wasn't protected under the 2nd Amendment.  Working with that reasoning, those firearms which do contribute to or have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of the milita are protected under the 2nd.  Many semi-auto's and certainly fully automatic firearms comply with that requirement.  So banning particular firearms should be judged with that philosophy in mind.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Fri, 02-08-2013 - 6:59pm

JW, the 2nd itself is justification for and protection for such personal firearms which are suitable or otherwise lend themselves to the effectiveness of the militia should such service be necessary.  That's a United States Supreme Court determination.  And with that in mind, semi- and fully-automatic firearms are well justified.

Safeguards?  There's a background check for new purchases, in some states a license is required for all or some firearms.  But if you're looking or expecting some sort of guarantee, you're out of luck.  Life has no guarantees, whether you're talking about people driving drunk or someone who legally owns a firearm.

"I asked why the majority of gun owners don't seem to drill regularly with that "well-regulated" militia of the Second."

Because there is no requirement to do so until such time as the respective states call the militia to serve. 

"Justifying owning arms because law enforcement officers don't have a commitment to protect and serve a specific individual is specious. By that logic, you'd be expected to have your own water hose and firefighting equipment."

Not specious in the slightest.  Many people have firefighting equipment for use in the even that a situation requires their use, such as fire extinguishers in the kitchen.  I even have a small one in my vehicle.  Many people consider the ownership of such things is simply a logical, reasonable precaution against the possiblity of a situation in which they can use be used to protect life and property.  I take it you disagree, that nobody need own such a device?

"You're not "entitled" to the response of firefighters and EMT's. And their promises to protect and serve, are for the community, not you. You have no legal right to expect timely and effective service from first responders. That whole bit sounds absurd, doesn't it?"

It sounds realistic JW, not absurd.  Emergency responders respond as and when they can, in as timely a manner as they can.  Doesn't mean they'll be in time to make a difference.  But from your statement I presume you either didn't read the court case I recommended on this subject, or you did read it and dismissed it as irrelevant. 

Moreover, I am not the problem. The climbing toll of gratutitous violence and death, particularly mass shootings and the shootings of people in areas where they ought to feel safe (and are, at least in the case of Chris Kyle, even armed), is clear proof that something is horribly wrong with the status quo, howls of "rights" and "freedoms" notwithstanding.

If you're presenting false information, then you are part of the problem.  In this case, the number of homicides in the US has fallen and been falling for years now, contradicting your statement about the "climbing toll of violence and death".  So while you're entirely correct that something is horribly wrong when people take others lives for no good reason or purpose, one thing which is also wrong is the promotion of falsehoods as fact as a means of supporting your argument.

Your rights to carry a firearm do NOT trump others rights to live, nor should it be necessary in a free and civil society to only feel secure if you carry a weapon.

So long as I use my firearm in accordance with the law and with appropriate safety precautions, my right is harming no one, much less depriving anyone of their life (unless their criminal actions make it necessary for me to defend myself or others).  

 My carrying of a firearm is simply a precaution against possible situations in which it might become necessary.  If you prefer to rely on law enforcement, by all means do so.  That's your choice, and your gamble.  For myself, I prefer to take precautions just in case law enforcement, for whatever reason, isn't nearby if there is an immediate, vital need for their services.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Fri, 02-08-2013 - 3:44pm

Guns are tools used by people and not always for appropriate reasons.  For that reason, there should be restrictions on guns and ownership.  I'm not even talking about an "all or nothing" argument.  I'm talking about people who own guns or want to purchase one needs to register the gun.  Retrictions for criminals makes logical sense and also certain types of weapons are NOT necessary for any reasonable explanation and therefore there is no reason to have then legalized.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 02-08-2013 - 2:56pm

How does my having a modern rifle prevent you from doing your thing?  How does my carrying have any thing to do with anyone who is also interested in living a civil life?

Because they fear you.  And if you have a weapon it's harder to control you.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 02-08-2013 - 2:54pm

Part of the issue is that liberals feel it is the government that grants them freedom, rather than it being an unalienable right that is defended by both the individual and the government...and that when the government fails to do so, it is up to the individual to defend those rights.  Their ideology is also a very selfish one...if they don't see a need for a gun YOU shouldn't have one.  The same thing is true for SUVs and light bulbs.

The simple fact is that they don't know what they're talking about.  They use terms like "assault rifles" to demonize and fear monger, when the weapons they're describing would never be used by our military to assault anything.  They don't care that rifles are used in only 3% of criminal shootings...and it's an even more infinitesimal number of shootings where a high-capacity clip was used.  But why let facts get in the way of a political ideology?

Like ignoring the FACT that cars kill exponentially more people than guns do...despite there being 300 million guns in this country.  If they're interested in the safety of school children, then why do they oppose having armed guards protecting them?  Why aren't there airbags on school busses?  Seatbelts?  Heck no!  But one loon goes on a shooting spree at a school and they don't go..."hey, wait a minute!  This guy was a loon and everyone knew it.  Let's address the actual CAUSE of the problem."  No...they'd rather use the tragedy to push their agenda and go after the guns KNOWING that it will do nothing to address the problem.  Why not go after the kind of car the guy drove to get to the school, it would accomplish just as much.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-03-2009
Fri, 02-08-2013 - 12:33am
No reasonable or logical answers. One must be " disadvantaged" if one does not have semi/automatic weapons?! Do you realize how daft that sounds? As for fear, it seems to me that the paranoia over what weapon might not be part of one's arsenal is far worse for society in general than my concern that a device designed to kill, might inflict.......wait for it.......death. Automobiles, in contrast, are meant as transport so trying to compare auto fatalities with firearms fatalities is cretinous beyond words. And the same holds true of equating freedom with firepower. It mist be horrible to feel victimized if you do not have a firearm. If you can guarantee with a a bond or hostage of some kind that your firearm will never be misused by you or a future owner, I have no issues. Lacking that guarantee and a surety, your firearm is a potential theat to the blameless. P.S. your graphic is sexist and inappropriate on a website which purports to cater to women.

Jabberwocka

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Thu, 02-07-2013 - 3:41pm

 The bottom line is with out the best weapons the person is at a disadvantage whe they wish to hunt, forage,or defend.   Police do not defend they react.  Now it might mean 5min or half an hour.  In those minutes what you yourself are capable of doing is the issue.  State of the art rifles give one the time.  As the defender is able to keep their heads down or chase them off.

   What your argument comes down to is fear.  Fear of harm or death.  A fear that in the case of modern rifles is less than 2%.

   Of course people will kill other people.  That is a known factor.  So what?  That is a risk of living.  Anyone is more likely to die in a car accident. 

   "Your rights to carry a firearm do NOT trump others rights to live, nor should it be necessary in a free and civil society to only feel secure if you carry a weapon. "

      How illogical! Feeling secure is an illusion anyway.  Most of us live our lives with out thinking about "feeling secure".  How does having a state of the art firearm have anything to do with others living (unless they are insisting on taking (stealing) what is mine).  Or offering harm to me or mine. 

   A free society is an armed if one wants to society.  About discouraging invaders that is true to some extant.  It means that armed people can resist.  Making the invasion expensive or untenable.

   But in no way interferes with your ability to go about your life.  That is right.  How does my having a modern rifle prevent you from doing your thing?  How does my carrying have any thing to do with anyone who is also interested in living a civil life?

dragowoman

Pages