Would you carry a gun if legal in your area

[JerryLove]

What's with all the liberal bashing? Should use phrases like "****phobic, xenophobic, wrong minded neolitich conservitives"?

Some liberals like guns you know. "right to do what you want" is considered a liberal perspective.. I want to carry firearms.

[Radhnoti]

You sound more like my definition of a LIBERTARIAN, than a LIBERAL.
By the way, libertarian is where I consider my own political leanings to lead me. People should be free to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't step on someone else's freedoms.

[wu_de36]

plenty of republicans who don't like the idea of guns either.

I think Jeff Cooper uses the term "hoplophobe" to describe people who are illogically anti-gun, and I prefer that term as well.

http://members.aol.com/gunbancon2/Fr...oplophobe.html

There are plenty of "liberals" in the South who vote pro-gun. Gore and Clinton both did to an extent while they were representaives of their state. Those are opportunistic examples, but there are some dems who support it.

McCain is a great example of a conservative who'd waffle on guns if it suited him enough.

[myosimka]

Again, read the text of the current form of the Brady Bill. The word handgun is used throughout and the term firearm was removed. Ie. the Brady Bill doesn't apply. Sarah Brady is a bit extreme for my tastes but even she has publicly stated that she does not want to see firearms outlawed. I'd be interested to know the source of the story that you listed because it's clearly factually inaccurate.
This is an issue that has been polarized by the extremes on both sides. A desire for sensible gun laws and enforcement of existing laws doesn't mean a desire for a ban. You can believe that or not. I know it to be the case because that's where I fit on the spectrum.
The big problem I have is with the misinformation spread by both sides. People don't make informed decisions about things because the information isn't out there. Like the story that you quote.
And as to the libertarian bit...you find a way to put an invisible shield around my property, my cars, my office, hell my body, then I'll agree that you have the right to own whatever guns you want because "it doesn't step on someone else's freedoms." Gun laws here in Virginia do step on my freedoms. A hunter fired a shot in the woods not 100yards from my house and across my property.
1)It's not illegal to fire across someone else's property. Explain to me how that's not a violation of my rights.
2)The guy probably broke the law because there is no way that shot didn't cross the road but the cop that we called wouldn't pursue it.
This was a perfect example of what galls me about gun laws and enforcement in this country. Enforce the laws that exist and have sensible laws. (I was astonished to find out that firing across someone else's property is not illegal. Personally I think that's a pretty common sense law.) That's what most of the gun control people I know are looking for. And if both sides would stop demonizing the other, maybe we'd reach some common ground.

Please note that this post was written without vile or name calling or assumptions about public figures or ...

[Dark Knight]

"The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, based in
Bellevue, Wash., is asking the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire
Arms to investigate whether gun-control advocate Sarah Brady violated
federal and state gun laws when she purchased a rifle for her son Scott.
Brady writes about the purchase in her newly released autobiography 'A Good
Fight.'

"'From all appearances,' the group's chairman, Alan Gottleib, said, 'Sarah
Brady exploited one of those so-called loopholes in the (federal) Brady law,
for which she arduously campaigned, to get a gun for her son. The gun was
allegedly a gift, but for someone who has demanded background checks for
every other American before they can take possession of a firearm, we think
the public deserves to know why she evidently felt it was okay to skirt that
requirement for her own son.'"

- UPI's "Capital Comment," 3/26/02

[Radhnoti]

Myosimka,

My source was...I think, called cybercast news service, but it may have been originally from another source as I've seen the same story word for word several places. Here's a link:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20020325d.html

YOU don't want handguns outlawed, but many gun-control advocates DO. Yes, I know it's the old "slippery slope" argument, but I feel it is a valid one. History has shown it to be a valid one.
Obviously, this worry of being shot at or around is a major issue for you. Can you look at this from another perspective? I remember walking into the local movie theatre and right next to me a kid threw a high hook kick (head level) toward another teen. It stopped inches from contact, and they both laughed. I noticed when he was putting his foot down he brushed against someone else walking in...who gave him a semi-frightened look before moving on. Obviously, people who had been standing nearby now moved away...afraid another display might occur. I suspect that this fellow was a local TKD student. Your perspective, in this case, would lead to laws and restrictions against TKD students using/practicing/showing their style in public. But, the problem, as I see it, isn't with the TKD...it's the INDIVIDUAL who decided to show off in public. The kid throwing the kick should have been thrown out or warned to not throw kicks while in the theatre. The guy shooting across your property should have been fined or warned, you admit yourself that he probably broke the law, firing across a road. Why would ANOTHER law suddenly make the officer that investigated your case do his job? If someone was firing a weapon across or on property in MY county without permission I believe the local sheriffs deputies would do whatever it took to make sure it didn't happen again, including charges like disturbing the peace...reckless endangerment...tresspassing, etc. Of course, the fact that I'm friends with many of them bolsters my confidence...
I didn't call you any names...don't think that I have previously, in fact this thread has been (comparatively) quite civil. But, I do take gun-control VERY personally. You are saying that you feel people (including me and, well...everyone) will do the wrong thing with guns, and therefore useage must be restricted. My feeling is that this is both arrogant and Unconstitutional. You shouldn't advocate taking rights away from people just because there is a potential they will do the wrong thing. Punish those who DO wrong, not anyone who CAN.

[myosimka]

And this is why I let this thread die time and again.(sigh)




1)I do want enforcement of existing laws. That's number one. But as soon as that starts cries of "jack-booted thugs at the ATF" sprout up. Most pro-gun advocates don't want enforcement of the existing laws. That was one of my complaints. Yes the cop should have enforced the law.

2)There is no law that prohibits firing across someone's property in Virginia. The only reason I thought he broke the law was because we live near an interstate and there is no way that shot didn't cross it. But if it hadn't been towards the road then it wouldn't have been a punishable offense. Again, we do need sensible gun laws. And I think that one is self-evident.

3)I feel that guns used improperly represent a threat to the public safety (including me and well ... everyone)and should be regulated. As are cars, as are medicines, as is fissionable material, as are toxic chemicals....

4)History has also proven that weapons restrictions without bans can work as well. Historical examples are great but remember that there is usually a counter example for everything.

5)You argument ad absurdium is poorly chosen. Show me one case of a completely accidental MA death. Not one where someone meant to hurt someone and killed them by mistake. Not a fight where a competitor died. But a situation where someone screwed around with a technique and someone in the next room died. Or a kid picked up a gi and died. Analogies are a weak debating principle (though they can be entertaining) but let's at least keep them relevant.

6)Attacking my thinking as arrogant is exactly the sort of thing I was trying to avoid in the previous post but you just couldn't resist. So here goes: Your assertion about the constitutionality of an argument that flies in the face of precedent is arrogant. (Hell, virtually any stance that one's position is more valid than others is arrogant to a certain extent) The Supreme Court has held that limitations on gun ownership are not inherently a violation of the second amendment. Legal scholars have debated this question for years, both sides have made valid points. I don't presume to understand constitutional arguments better than generations of supreme court justices. But I would like to point out a thing or 2. Clearly the 2nd amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It also clearly states a specific purpose. Something noticably overlooked in many arguments I hear. The funny thing is the precise wording is "A well regulated Militia". Well regulated. Hmm. Interesting choice of words. It also fails to define arms. And clearly certain arms are proscribed. A stinger missile is an arm. An ICBM is an arm. Most reasonable people agree that fissionable material should be regulated. Perhaps you are not one of them but clearly certain restrictions on weapons do not constitute a violation of the second amendment. And I get tired of listening to people cite the second amendment and ignoring the purpose clause. It's the only amendment that clearly defines a purpose. There is a reason for that.






P.S. I again point out the weapon inquestion was a .30-06 which does not fall under Brady. It may be a violation of Delaware law but I think an oversight on this point doesn't constitute hypocrisy. I don't know every gun law in this state. Going into a shop to buy one, I might violate a law. It doesn't make me a hypocrite. Her push has always been for greater restrictions on handguns. The weapon in question is a different matter. If I lobby for the restriction of automatic weapons and buy a target pistol for a friend it doesn't make me a hypocrite. Different issues. That's why I was looking for the site. Wanted to get specifics before I made any claims.

Thanks for the site.

[Radhnoti]

Sorry if it takes me a while to answer one of your posts. There's usually quite a bit to respond to...

I'll try to present my argument as you did your own. I'm placing in quotes a few arguments "on loan" from guncite.com...which is a great site if anyone wants to check it out.

1) 3) and partially 6) (Where you refer to ICBMs)
My preference would be NOT to have any gun restrictions, simply to punish people for what they DO irregardless of what tool they use. "In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not."

2)
OK, you say there's no law stopping someone from firing across your property. How about a million other laws that can easily be enforced? Disturbing the peace? Reckless endangerment? What if the guy was throwing rocks across your property? Should there be a law against rocks? A gun is a TOOL, no need to regulate the tool...just regulate the offensive (meaning infringing on your freedoms) actions. In my opinion, had the officer not been lax (perhaps even friends with the hunter?) he'd have been able to do something about your problem.

4)
Yes, but my example points out that the slippery slope argument is a possible one. Why take the chance? It my job, and everyone else who agrees that guns shouldn't be taken from U.S. citizens, to do everything I can to keep the U.S. from sliding down that particular slope.

5)
Issues like these don't always follow the path of logic or reason. The fact that you feel the martial art example has no relevance doesn't mean that others won't see a direct correlation. See my previous post in this thread about New York trying to pass a law requiring MA instructors to be licensed. Not dance instructors, not bakers, or english professors. People see what YOU do as dangerous, and since they DON'T do it they have no problem with passing laws to control it. I don't know of an instance (personally) where someone died in a martial art's accident. But I know several where someone was accidentally hurt...that's enough for some people. Besides everyone knows Mr. Mooney can kill from a distance, SHOULD THAT NOT BE REGULATED!

6 (the long one))
I'm sorry if you took this as a personally attack of some sort...for all I know you're just the kind of person that likes to stir things up and don't believe a word of what you're saying. So, really, don't take it personally.

The Supreme Court: (on occasion) the Supreme Court agrees on the meaning of "the people" as used in the Bill of Rights (Adamson v. California, 1947).
"The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government..."
To portray the Supreme Court as some sort of neutral, unpolitical entity is ridiculous. They are appointed by politicians, and their authority (like the rest of the government) should only be viewed as granted them by the citizenry. One decade they will see things one way, the next another. Words can be twisted and turned until they say whatever you want, and no one knows that better than a lawyer...from which the Supreme Court Justices are taken I believe. If the Supreme Court stepped up tomorrow and told everyone that "the people" throughout the Constitution only meant groups controlled by the government I wouldn't believe them, and I hope you wouldn't either.
"That one must explain why the "people" in the Second Amendment means individuals, rather than the state or the people "collectively," is a sad commentary on the intellectual honesty of our day. Where are the quotes from the founders indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is solely a right belonging to the state? None have yet to be brought forth.
The first eight amendments were meant to preserve specifically named individual rights. (The Ninth Amendment was meant to insure that no one would argue that those first eight were the only individual rights protected from infringment.) The people are mentioned throughout the Bill of Rights. Were the Founding Fathers so careless in constructing a legal document that they would use the word "people" when they meant the "state?" "

The "purpose clause" in the Second Amendment:

""A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
One does not have to belong to a well regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms. The militia clause is merely one, and not the only, rationale for preserving the right. The Founders were expressing a preference for a militia over a standing army. Even if today's well regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The militia clause was never meant to limit the right to keep and bear arms. Rather it was the "chief political reason for guaranteeing the right against governmental infringement. Keeping and bearing arms would be protected for all lawful purposes, but self-defense, hunting, shooting at the mark (i.e., target shooting), and other nonpolitical purposes had no place in a federal Constitution which delegated no power to regulate these activities." (Personally, I love this point...there was a time when it was felt the government had NO right to regulate activities like personal gun ownership. Our government has become a bloated monster, passing laws and regulations that filter down into every part of our everyday lives...it's sickening.)

Also: "the word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens (no longer exclusively male) enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies. The term also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Is today's National Guard the militia? It is a PART (emphasis added by Radh) of the well regulated militia, it was not the intent of the framers to restrict the right to keep arms to a militia let alone a well regulated one. "

Your P.S.
So...it's your contention that Ms. Brady didn't actually KNOW the laws that she worked so hard to push through? The hypocrisy is that she expects everyone else to be subject to gun restrictions, but she and her son need not worry about the very laws she has forced upon we "peasents".

[myosimka]

The reason that I have let this die time and again is because you don't actually listen. This will be my last post in this thread regardless for just this reason.

I apologize in advance for the tone of this reply but I am tired of reading posts written for their soundbites as opposed to actual sound debating. But mainly I am tired of people not reading my posts and then countering 'points' I never made.


The case in point near my property. You cannot enforce a reckless endangerment or disturbing the piece statute for these purposes during hunting season. Period. And if you can believe that you can, then you are delusional which explains the problems. Also I don't want to outlaw guns. I would however like a law similar to the statutes about highways that prohibit firing across or onto another person's property. BTW, neither disturbing the peace nor reckless endangerment would apply if I hadn't been in the house. Should he still be able to shoot across my property? Endangering my home, pets, etc. So a sensible gun law is one that proscribes the behavior. Ie. you may not fire across another person's property without express permission. I never asked to outlaw guns or rocks. Again keep the analogies relevant. Again your argument ad absurdia is poorly chosen. And your opinion based on your limited experience with the situation is sort of worthless. The end result is nothing was done. Enforcement and sensible laws. Actually respond to what I am saying.

Fine want to make arguments on the term arm. The term arm in colocnial times would have included stinger missiles, LAWs, grenades, etc. Rockets would actually not have been precluded because the distinction was carried weapons. I have a problem with private citizens with handheld anti-aircraft heatseeking or transponder guided systems. Maybe you don't. And we can play with the definitions but the point is that we can't know what the intent would have been for unconceived of weapons. Hence the desire for flexibility in interpretation. And to presume what the founding fathers would have thought about modern weapons is ridiculous. Gas weapons, biological agents, handheld explosives, automatic weapons, hell revolvers didn't exist.

So what's your point on the rock and martial arts outlaw arguments? I don't want to outlaw guns. And I have said this repeatedly. Your refusal to speak to issues I explicitly raise and to leap to the conclusion that I am in favor of bans on things is a narrowminded extremist position. That and your incessant attachment to this idea and continuous cries of "Slippery slope!!!!" actually prevent any movement toward resolution. And for the pruposes of political expediency if I can't get reasonable gun control laws by working with gunowners, I will cast my vote with the other extreme. So try not to give the moderates only 2 choices. You may not like the results. And yes if MA had the accidental death rates of guns, I'd be okay with someone regulating it. If nonparticipants died every year accidentally as a function of negligence in numbers equal to gun deaths, then yeah I'd want it regulated. But again that's a ridiculous comparison. I skydive and I support regulations in reference to it. (especially when it comes to bystanders at demonstrations) Not a ban. And the USPA works with the FAA closely to self-regulate. Yes I'd like members of the gun community to play a part in this. They are clearly more educated than non-gunowners on the relevant issues in most cases. But you clearly refuse to self-regulate or to play a part in forming the regulations. The belief that any form of compromise is unacceptable is the reason that gun laws get passed that you find unpalatable.

Your constitutionality arguments are not based in precedent or the wording of the amendment. The individual right shall be preserved to support the collective objective, that's what it states. And if the militia clause is not significant why does it exist in the bill? No other right detailed in the Bill of Rights states an explicit purpose for the right. Why not? You can shrug that fact aside but then you are clearly ignoring facts in evidence that don't support your point. Hell you can make any stance valid that way. And yes, the supreme court is biased as are all bodies. (As were the drafters of the constitution.)


Lastly, this is the third time that I have said it and again you keep ignoring it.
A .30-06 is not covered under the Brady Bill. She did not push for background checks on rifles. Delaware law may require them but she did not lobby to change Delaware law. The gun that she purchased does not fall under the bill she lobbied for in congress. What do you not get about that?? And she has publicly stated that she is not in favor of gun bans. Which her purchase and disclosure in this case clearly support. So despite your paranoid beliefs, gun regulation advocates do not necessarily want gun bans.

[Dark Knight]

"A .30-06 is not covered under the Brady Bill. She did not push for background checks on rifles. "

When the Brady Bill first started rifles and shotguns were not part of it, but it is now.

Also in her state where she bought it, the person it is bought for has to be listed on the application for a check.

[Radhnoti]

So...Sarah Brady was a victim of the "slippery slope" of gun-control? That's classic!
Look, myosimka...I've never said I felt compromise between your side and mine was necessary. In fact, I think I've said from the beginnning that compromising (for my side) is the equivilent of LOSING. Because whenever we lose a gun right, it's gone and it ain't coming back. It's a temporary goal that the anti-gun establishment has met and moved past to their eventual goal of a total ban. It's not moderates like you that press for gun restrictions, it's the extremists...and it's not their intention to stop, they've stated as much. Compromise is losing, gun rights activists need to take the offensive and REPEAL a law or two. Are you willing to compromise with me and dump all the laws requiring a background check? No? Why is it that you feel MY side has to compromise then? We've already compromised...or lost... several political battles. I've not seen the sentiment against gun ownership lessen following these "compromises". For you to say, "Really, this is as far as they'll go!" is either extremely near-sighted or manipulative.
If there is no law stopping people from shooting across your property in your community...or (more importantly) law enforcement who will keep things civil, I'm sorry. If I were in your position I'd make it a point to shoot around/toward anyone who shot around/toward me. After all, it's (apparently) not against the law. Not much consolation to someone who doesn't own (I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly) a gun, I know. Again, I say, in MY community this would not be a problem. You are asking to outlaw a tool and NOT the objectionable behavior...I don't know how else to respond to your point. No more examples, I think you're wrong. I tried showing you through my examples why I thought you were wrong, but apparently our views are so different there's no common ground. Hand held, non-high explosive weaponry should be protected by the Constitution, in my view this should include automatic weapons. Not biologicals...not nerve gas...not hand held nukes, not grenades, not stingers or LAW rockets which should all be filed away as "ordinance".
Ok, you completely dismiss my argument about Constitutionality as being "not based in precedent or the wording" and you say I'm ignoring the facts? THE PEOPLE is THE PEOPLE for every other amendment, except the second...and I'm ignoring the facts?
I gave, to my mind, a perfectly good reason for your "purpose clause". The founders didn't prefer we have a standing army, they wanted everyone armed so every individual could rise up if needed, very common sense in my opinion. I didn't knowingly shrug any "point" you made aside.
And, yes, the founders were "biased", but their point of view founded this country and guaranteed (assuming we don't get too lazy) we'd have certain rights.
You say I'm ignoring your point of view, when a page or so back in this thread I complemented you for a valid and good point made a bit earlier. I believe that, in fact, it is you who dismisses points made by "the opposition" (that'd be me) as irrelevent, silly or not addressing your REAL argument. If you want me to respond to a specific point you might want to shorten your posts...or ask a specific question, maybe just summarize. I plow through the whole thing and do what I can to interpret your main points, but as we've already discussed my point of view is QUITE different from yours.

And don't you think, in retrospect, that it's a bit silly to pre-apologize for how you're about to say something? If you're coherent enough to know that you're about to be a bit rude, then obviously it's your INTENT to be rude and the apology is not genuine. Right?
I'm as friendly to you as I can be to someone who I feel can't (or won't) see an obvious truth. I'm sure that you feel the same way about me. You're wrong, I know it. I'm wrong, you know it. If my or your wording gets a bit strained from time to time due to the obvious stupidity (not ignorance as we both seem to understand the issues) of the other, I promise not to let it affect the close bond we share. I love you, ya little commie gun-grabber you!