Guns

[FLGOP]

OR, the criminals get guns and shoot you, but that's just a thought...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but many of them in the US already possess guns, many of which they are not supposed to have because it is against the law.  This returns to my premise that criminals who use guns are law breakers even before they use a gun to kill someone.

[jravnsbo]

Here is Kerry's stance on gun control:

Democratic Party shouldn't be for the NRA. (Nov 2003)

Supports assault weapons ban & Brady Bill.
(Oct 2003)

Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

Voted NO on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)
Prevent unauthorized firearm use with "smart gun" technology. (Aug 2000)

So, why if he is so against guns, will he not support tougher laws against people that commit crimes with guns??

[KEmperor]

Well, I finally managed to get through the whole thread.  A lot has been said.  I should just add that I agree with the notion that the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not the government.  This includes the second amendment.  John Lott's book is dead on, i've read most of it.  And I enjoyed that quote from Condi Rice, I had never heard it before.

[Gustaf]

Well, I finally managed to get through the whole thread.  A lot has been said.  I should just add that I agree with the notion that the Bill of Rights applies to individuals, not the government.  This includes the second amendment.  John Lott's book is dead on, i've read most of it.  And I enjoyed that quote from Condi Rice, I had never heard it before.

Lol, you actually read through the whole thread and then just posted that?

I wouldn't be so ambitious with everything on the forum, you'd never get the time to post anything yourself...

Btw, didn't you use to be an independent?

[KEmperor]

Well, I didn't post more than that because everything has pretty much already been said.  And yes, I was an independent, but I recently rejoined the Republican Party.  I was a Libertarian, and I still am, but I have become disillusioned with the idea of third parties.

[Gustaf]

Well, I didn't post more than that because everything has pretty much already been said.  And yes, I was an independent, but I recently rejoined the Republican Party.  I was a Libertarian, and I still am, but I have become disillusioned with the idea of third parties.

OK, I remembered the name and the green avatar.

[KEmperor]

Im surprised you remembered, I only have a handful of posts here.

[Gustaf]

Im surprised you remembered, I only have a handful of posts here.

Yes, but you asked a question about the party colours and I remembered the name...I guess I have a good memory for unecessary information. Though it did allow me to have this little conversation with you and get to know you better, so I guess it served a purpose this time.

[KEmperor]

Haha, well, that's true.

[nclib]

Btw, didn't you use to be an independent?

Well, I didn't post more than that because everything has pretty much already been said.  And yes, I was an independent, but I recently rejoined the Republican Party.  I was a Libertarian, and I still am, but I have become disillusioned with the idea of third parties.

And didn't you used to have a Louisiana avatar?

[KEmperor]

Yes, I did.  I went to Tulane University in New Orleans.  Now I am moving back to my home state.

[YRABNNRM]

Yes, I did.  I went to Tulane University in New Orleans.  Now I am moving back to my home state.

Where do you live on LI?

[KEmperor]

Well, I grew up in Levittown/East Meadow in Nassau County, but my parents moved out to Middle Island in Suffolk County while I was away at college.

[© tweed]

Well, I grew up in Levittown/East Meadow in Nassau County, but my parents moved out to Middle Island in Suffolk County while I was away at college.

I'm in Melville, suffolk county.  I have relatives in Levittown.

[NHPolitico]

Another passage I ran across about gun control and black Americans like Condi Rice...

During the Civil Rights struggle it came also to be called "Bombingham," with racist explosives killing not only Rice's friend and three other girls but also shattering the home of black civil rights lawyer Arthur Shores and terrifying the African-American community.

"Rice's father went to police headquarters to demand an investigation," wrote Dale Russakoff in the Washington Post Magazine. "They didn't investigate," Condoleezza Rice has said. "They never investigated."

The police commissioner in Birmingham who would not investigate was Bull Connor, a Democrat who perfectly embodies everything that political party has always stood for. When civil rights protesters arrived, Connor unleashed his dogs and fire hoses on them.

"John Rice," writes Russakoff, "then did what black fathers all over Birmingham were doing -- what Alma Powell remembers her own father doing then, when she happened to be home with her babies during her husband's [Colin Powell's] tour in Vietnam: They got out their shotguns and formed nightly patrols, guarding the streets themselves."

[kenhd]

First of all, guns are here to stay. From single shot muskets to whatever the hell the future brings. Too many people enjoy them; too many are paranoid self-protectionist nuts; and how the hell is any government going to take them all away?  

The only problem with the second amendment is the old semantics question. What the hell does 'bear' really mean? Ownership? Use necassary to survival (hunting, self-defense)? Use as you please, and like driving, if someone gets hurt then it's wrong? Full blown wild-west, those still standing make the rules, firepower out the a--, the more bullets flying the better?

All that aside, guns give virtually anyone the power of life and death. We have more disdain for the other driver in this nation than we do for people who have accidents involving guns. Maybe that's because the latter group is armed; or maybe because we want to feel bad drivers are more dangerous to our lives because the alternative is to admit that the wild-west thing could actually occur?

[We won't mention gun murders if you don't mention that negligent driving really doesn't qualify as accidental.]

[opebo]

I'm 100% pro-gun.  Or at least I don't want anyone telling me I can or cannot have guns.  I probably wouldn't bother with actually getting one.  Grew up with them though, in the wilds of Missouri - they're a lot of fun for young boys.

[zachman]

I'm extremely anti-guns, and it is perhaps the issue in which I am the furthest from the Republican position. I don't see why any average person in there right mind needs a gun. Some argue self-defense. Why not stun-guns?

I hate how so much of the Republican agenda is killing court cases in HMO problems, environmental lawsuits, and the attempted bill to restrict gun lawsuits. Thank goodness the bill collapsed today.

[Redefeatbush04]

I'm extremely anti-guns, and it is perhaps the issue in which I am the furthest from the Republican position. I don't see why any average person in there right mind needs a gun. Some argue self-defense. Why not stun-guns?

I hate how so much of the Republican agenda is killing court cases in HMO problems, environmental lawsuits, and the attempted bill to restrict gun lawsuits. Thank goodness the bill collapsed today.

I see your point. Criminals are going to get the guns anyway, so to defend against those guns citizens should have the right to a stun gun/tranqulizer gun.  However it is a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. The average person doesn't need a gun. However many people do. Some, particularly in alaska and the rocky mountains hunt to provide themselves with food. It is considered entertaining and serves a usefull purpose. Others need guns for different reasons. The logic is "would you attack someone knowing that they don't have a gun, or not knowing whether or not they have a gun." Yes the stun gun idea makes more sense, however it would never work in our society, a society with 10X the number of murders as nations such as Canada, the UK, and Japan have.

[John Dibble]

I'm extremely anti-guns, and it is perhaps the issue in which I am the furthest from the Republican position. I don't see why any average person in there right mind needs a gun. Some argue self-defense. Why not stun-guns?

I hate how so much of the Republican agenda is killing court cases in HMO problems, environmental lawsuits, and the attempted bill to restrict gun lawsuits. Thank goodness the bill collapsed today.

I see your point. Criminals are going to get the guns anyway, so to defend against those guns citizens should have the right to a stun gun/tranqulizer gun.  However it is a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. The average person doesn't need a gun. However many people do. Some, particularly in alaska and the rocky mountains hunt to provide themselves with food. It is considered entertaining and serves a usefull purpose. Others need guns for different reasons. The logic is "would you attack someone knowing that they don't have a gun, or not knowing whether or not they have a gun." Yes the stun gun idea makes more sense, however it would never work in our society, a society with 10X the number of murders as nations such as Canada, the UK, and Japan have.

Stun guns are not nearly as an effective measure of self defense as a handgun. You'll note that while police carry them around nowadays, they still carry their traditional firearms. The reasons they are not as good a defense as a firearm are numerous. Three deserve note.

First off, you only get a single shot - miss and you're screwed, get attacked by a group and not miss and you're still screwed(and when the guy gets up his buddies are gonna hold you while he does some rather nasty work on your face before slitting your throat). A pistol wins here, as it is normal for them to have at least six rounds - leaving you room for error or extra ammo for groups of attackers.

Second, there's a lack of stopping power - while normally effective, it may not stop your attacker, which you know a bullet to the head would. Once again, a gun wins.

The third is based on the second - fear factor. Stun guns are for the most part non-lethal. Guns usually are. You'll be happy to know that in the vast majority of cases where a gun is used for self-defense, a shot doesn't even need to be fired(and often in the case where it is, nobody is actually hit by a bullet) - the assailant will generally run away. And it is true that criminals are more afraid of armed victims than they are of the police.

Now, as far as tranquilizer guns go, you have the second problem at least. It looks like a gun enough not to have a third, and you can get multiple shots. But, as I said, it lacks stopping power - tranquilizer takes time to take effect, and on large suspects(who may be jacked up on who knows what kind of stimulant, painkiller, or whatever) it may take long enough for them to take your life. Of course, these can be lethal as well - too much tranquilizer will shut down the body.

So, given the above, I'd prefer a handgun for defense. Now, anyone who recognizes the need for self-defense but is just not comfortable with a gun still should get a stun gun or tranquilizer gun - they are inferior means, but they are better than nothing at all.

[phk]

I'm very pro-gun.

Mao Zedong once said, "Power grows from the barrel of a gun".

Wise words.

[MaC]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

[phk]

Communists are pro-gun too.

[John Dibble]

Communists are pro-gun too.

Until they come into power.

[Redefeatbush04]

guns are good.  As a (more biased on this site) libertarian, you'd think I'd have more to say, but I don't.  Probably whatever I wanted to say has already been posted on this thread.

Now I am all for people owning guns but to say that they are good is a huuuuge stretch. One of the biggest reasons that people own guns is to defend themselves against others that own guns (legally or illegally). The only use for guns is to injure/kill. Whether it be to injure/kill a person in self defense, to injure/kill a person out of anger, revenge, or greed, or to kill animals for fun/food. I don't see what is good about that. I believe that life should be preserved whenever possible. This is why i am against the death penalty, abortion, and yes even guns. I am not unreasonable. I understand that it would be stupid for the government to take your guns away. That is why I am more or less against gun control as well. Guns that aren't used for hunting are a necessary evil. People will find ways around regulations and the rest of the law-abiding population will have no way to defend themselves. People have a RIGHT to bear arms....in public and in private places. Certain restrictions are necessary to save lives. Guns that penetrate bullet proof vests cannot be allowed. Assault weapons that use flashers (is that the right word) cannot be allowed. But for the most part people should be able to own guns. Does this mean that they are good? No it doesn't.