Jump to content

GUN CONTROL & YOU

Guest BlackJesus

By Guest BlackJesus
in JESUS & DRUMPF

GUN CONTROL & YOU  

43 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe in ANY level of gun control whatsoever ?

    • Yes
      37
    • NO !
      6

  2. 2. Do you believe that the 2nd amendment applies only to "well trained militias" and not to individuals ?

    • Yes
      7
    • No
      29
    • Maybe
      7

  3. 3. Do you believe that people should be limited in the # of guns they can own ?

    • No, unlimited # of guns for law abiding citizens
      22
    • Yes, you have to have a limit
      13
    • Yes, that limit should be one gun
      3
    • Yes, that limit should be NO guns
      5

  4. 4. Should semi automatic weapons be banned ?

    • Yes
      17
    • No
      20
    • in some cases
      6

  5. 5. Should high capacity clips be banned ?

    • Yes
      23
    • No
      15
    • in some cases
      5

  6. 6. Should all gun purchases come with a background check ?

    • Yes
      40
    • No
      3

  7. 7. Should all gun purchases come with a 48 hr waiting period ?

    • Yes
      38
    • No
      5

  8. 8. Should citizens have to register all guns with the police ?

    • Yes
      31
    • No
      12

  9. 9. Should citizens be able to carry concealed weapons anywhere ?

    • Yes, anywhere
      4
    • In most places
      24
    • Not anywhere
      15

  10. 10. I believe the large amount of guns in America makes America _______ ?

    • Safer
      14
    • Less safe
      16
    • Free from possible tyranny
      6
    • A scene out of Grand theft auto
      7

  11. 11. Do you own a gun yourself ?

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      31

  12. 12. Does the 2nd amendment cover owning a bazooka ?

    • Yes
      10
    • No
      33

  13. 13. Is the NRA in America too powerful ?

    • Yes, they need to be reigned in
      15
    • No, I wish they had more power
      2
    • No, they lobby like anyone else
      26

  14. 14. Is rampant gun ownership a good way to combat crime ?

    • Yes, will make criminals think twice
      17
    • No, the criminal will bring a bigger gun
      4
    • No, citizens are not police
      15
    • Maybe
      7

  15. 15. Should guns come with a fingerprint device that only lets the owner pull the trigger ?

    • Yes
      20
    • No
      23

  16. 16. In your opinion, are there too many guns in America ?

    • Yes
      22
    • No
      21

Recommended Posts

Vol_Bengal Hall Of Fame

Vol_Bengal

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Nati Ice' post='474053' date='Apr 18 2007, 10:37 AM']1) i am a gun owner
2) 4 people do not change the characterization of a whole (but seriously, thats the best list you could come up with?)[/quote]
I didn't put much time into a search... rattled those off the top of my head. Glad you're exercising your right. Yes, there is Bubba and his buddies that are rednecks that are "uneducated" but to again paint that broad a stroke isn't accurate. Who's characterizing it as such - from what I can tell only you. Are you a member of the NRA, or just a gun owner?

Not knowing the answer to that - what exactly makes an NRA member different from you in that he's unedyubucated (I mean educated)?

I'd like to know the difference.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CatScratchFever Hall Of Fame

CatScratchFever

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Actium' post='473859' date='Apr 17 2007, 09:19 PM']If is very difficult to do direct comparisons like that--the difference in crime is probably due to many factors, not just the presence of gun control. You'd have to isolate two areas that are identical in every respect except for the gun control--and that is not really possible.[/quote]
Then compare the crime rates in Washington DC before and after the gun control laws were enacted, and then tell me if you think they were effective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Actium Hall Of Fame

Actium

Posted
Posted
[quote name='CatScratchFever' post='474155' date='Apr 18 2007, 12:34 PM']Then compare the crime rates in Washington DC before and after the gun control laws were enacted, and then tell me if you think they were effective.[/quote]

When where they enacted? Have the demographics shifted any?

Edited to add: anyway, wasn't the ban recently overturned by a court as violative of the 2nd amendment? If so, then this is the time to moniter what happens--if the overturn stands. Let's keep an eye on the stats of DC--but it would be ideal if a concealed carry law were implemented (doubtful in DC).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest bengalrick

Guest bengalrick

Posted
Posted
Both of these are honest and straightforward questions.. as many probably know, i agree wholeheartidly w/ the second amendment and even though i am not a hunter myself, i would stand and fight for the second amendment to remain in place...

however, these shootings should be placed in a good context before analyzing whether or not gun control (or lack there of) is the best policy... i think i am still firmly in the camp that rejects gun control, but i admit to be somewhat rattled on this particular subject...

for anti gun owers: my arguement has always been that people can make guns from household items or from illegially selling them... in other words, if you ban the weapons, only the bad guys have them all the sudden... this episode does not change these facts (and they are facts) but would this boy have done this if he wasn't able to legally buy a gun? i doubt it... he would have probably gone off still, but would not have had the ability to buy a gun in such short notice, or make one so the chances of this happening are slim...

in my opinion, w/ a stricter gun law in the state of virginia, this shooting would not have happened... the regular arguement is that wrong doers are less likely to draw a gun on someone, if they are not sure if the person behind them also has a gun... this is very true, however this particular kid didn't care about that, considering he ended up shooting himself..

on the other side of the coin, if any one person had a gun on them at the time when cho killed that girl, there would be 2 deaths instead of 30+ deaths... if one person had a gun and a set of balls to shoot it, no chance in hell that that boy makes it back to school 2 hours later and shoots up any class rooms...

like i said, i am still pro gun but in this particular case, it wouldn't have happened w/ stricter gun laws...

just something i've been contemplating...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest bengalrick

Guest bengalrick

Posted
Posted

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474255' date='Apr 18 2007, 04:44 PM']No offence or anything but can I merge this with BJ's gun control poll thread?[/quote]


What!!?!??!?!??! hell no, thats bull shit!!!!!!!!!!














j/k, go for it :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jamie_B Hall Of Fame

Jamie_B

Posted
Posted
[url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html"]http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html[/url]

[b]A well regulated militia[/b], being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



Anyone here belong to one of those?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ben Hall Of Fame

Ben

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474261' date='Apr 18 2007, 04:48 PM'][url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html"]http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html[/url]

[b]A well regulated militia[/b], being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Anyone here belong to one of those?[/quote]

Dont answer that!!! Its a trick question, Jamie works for "THE MAN"!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason Hall Of Fame

Jason

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474261' date='Apr 18 2007, 04:48 PM'][url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html"]http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html[/url]

[b]A well regulated militia[/b], being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of [b][size=2][color="#FF0000"]the people[/color][/size][/b] to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Anyone here belong to one of those?[/quote]

A couple of points. First of all, the other 9 Ammendments in the original bill of rights all applied to personal freedoms. It would make sense that this one does too.

Secondly, the context needs to be considered. Back then, "the militia" were the citizens not already members of the army. Everyone was the army reserve back then. Doesn't it make sense that the US would have a right to have an army, and that army would be allowed to have guns? Why would they need a constitutional ammendment to say that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest bengalrick

Guest bengalrick

Posted
Posted
as with many things, so much has changed since the constitution was drafted.. however, the priniciples and the points that they were trying to make are still very relevant in our lives today... for instance, one should have the right to own a gun to protect themselves from the gov't, along w/ criminals... teh gov't is more a stretch nowaday, but not totally irrelevant... but every citizen should be able to protect themselves in case things hit the fan (aka new orleans)...

the word militia is outdated, but the point they were trying to make is still very relevant...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Actium Hall Of Fame

Actium

Posted
Posted
[quote name='bengalrick' post='474269' date='Apr 18 2007, 03:57 PM']as with many things, so much has changed since the constitution was drafted.. however, the priniciples and the points that they were trying to make are still very relevant in our lives today... for instance, one should have the right to own a gun to protect themselves from the gov't, along w/ criminals... teh gov't is more a stretch nowaday, but not totally irrelevant... but every citizen should be able to protect themselves in case things hit the fan (aka new orleans)...

the word militia is outdated, but the point they were trying to make is still very relevant...[/quote]

In some cases, it makes perfect sense to understand the context the C was written in. In others, it shows that the Drafters looked upon it as hollow--the Alien and Sedition Acts, for instance. Thomas Jefferson was completely crazy about the second amendment--his famous quotation that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Yeah, I bet he'd be all for that if his administration was deemed a rogue government.

Despite all the flaws of the American Revolution, it was clearly superior to the French experiment, and has resulted in a much more stable society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jamie_B Hall Of Fame

Jamie_B

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Jason' post='474265' date='Apr 18 2007, 04:52 PM']A couple of points. First of all, the other 9 Ammendments in the original bill of rights all applied to personal freedoms. It would make sense that this one does too.

[b]Secondly, the context needs to be considered. Back then, "the militia" were the citizens not already members of the army. Everyone was the army reserve back then. Doesn't it make sense that the US would have a right to have an army, and that army would be allowed to have guns? Why would they need a constitutional ammendment to say that?[/b][/quote]


That kind of furthers my point, there was no standing army at that time thus why wouldnt it be up for debate that due to the existance of one now that the admement should be reconcidered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Actium Hall Of Fame

Actium

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474279' date='Apr 18 2007, 04:04 PM']That kind of furthers my point, there was no standing army at that time thus why wouldnt it be up for debate that due to the existance of one now that the admement should be reconcidered.[/quote]

The amendment process is almost impossible. It's not as ridiculous as the Articles of Confederation (which was ignored by the Framers, so the whole Constitution was technically illegal per the Articles) but it's just not possible for meaningful reform to occur in the way intended. Just as most necessary reforms to existing laws are not really possible. That's why judicial activism is favored--it's the modern version of bypassing the amendment process that began with the Constitutional Convention itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason Hall Of Fame

Jason

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474279' date='Apr 18 2007, 05:04 PM']That kind of furthers my point, there was no standing army at that time thus why wouldnt it be up for debate that due to the existance of one now that the admement should be reconcidered.[/quote]

The problem is gun bans don't stop criminals from having guns. It only stops the good citizens from having them.

Would you really prefer that the only people that have guns are the criminals? Is that what you really want? Because that is what happened at Va Tech, and at Columbine.

What needs to be done is to enforce the laws on the books for gun crimes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jamie_B Hall Of Fame

Jamie_B

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Jason' post='474297' date='Apr 18 2007, 05:35 PM']The problem is gun bans don't stop criminals from having guns. It only stops the good citizens from having them.

Would you really prefer that the only people that have guns are the criminals? Is that what you really want? [b]Because that is what happened at Va Tech, and at Columbine.[/b]
What needs to be done is to enforce the laws on the books for gun crimes.[/quote]


No it didnt. The Tech gunmen never had prior arrests, if the girls who were stalked decided to press charges or the school did something about it, then that may not have happened. Also if the bill that prevented that type of fire arm to be owned wasnt allowed to expire, its possible that less would have died. Cliebold and Harris had some minor stuff on their records but nothing that indacated they would do that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jason Hall Of Fame

Jason

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474302' date='Apr 18 2007, 05:47 PM']No it didnt. The Tech gunmen never had prior arrests, if the girls who were stalked decided to press charges or the school did something about it, then that may not have happened. Also if the bill that prevented that type of fire arm to be owned wasnt allowed to expire, its possible that less would have died. Cliebold and Harris had some minor stuff on their records but nothing that indacated they would do that.[/quote]

You missed my point. My point is, at Va Tech and Columbine the only people to have guns were the criminals, aka the shooters. If you ban guns from citizens, then the only people with guns are the criminals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
staticx682000 Hall Of Fame

staticx682000

Posted
Posted
People can what if all day long,take guns away,this kid builds a nice well placed bomb and kills the whole class...I have said it before and will say it again,this is pretty much common sense.If you take one tool away then they will find another.This kid was crazy and evil and no heart or respect for human life and he killed...When we find out how to stop that we will win...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jamie_B Hall Of Fame

Jamie_B

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Jason' post='474310' date='Apr 18 2007, 06:00 PM']You missed my point. My point is, at Va Tech and Columbine the only people to have guns were the criminals, aka the shooters. If you ban guns from citizens, then the only people with guns are the criminals.[/quote]


No I didnt miss your point at all, your missing mine however. The guns that were purchased by Robyn Anderson (Harris and Klebold were both underage at the time) and Cho Seung-Hui were purchased legally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
staticx682000 Hall Of Fame

staticx682000

Posted
Posted
[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474338' date='Apr 18 2007, 05:45 PM']No I didnt miss your point at all, your missing mine however. The guns that were purchased by Robyn Anderson (Harris and Klebold were both underage at the time) and Cho Seung-Hui were purchased legally.[/quote]Robyn Anderson in my opinion should have been charged with a straw purchase..Plus the only reason she was not because they didnt know where she bought them.I would never buy guns for others..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jamie_B Hall Of Fame

Jamie_B

Posted
Posted
[quote name='staticx682000' post='474341' date='Apr 18 2007, 06:53 PM']Robyn Anderson in my opinion should have been charged with a straw purchase..Plus the only reason she was not because they didnt know where she bought them.I would never buy guns for others..[/quote]


Replyed while you were editing but I completely agree with the edit as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest bengalrick

Guest bengalrick

Posted
Posted
i agree w/ jamie that in those two instances the gun laws would have prevented them getting guns...

but jamie, the problems lies in the fact that you can make a gun out of shit around the house... take away legally purchased guns and then literally only the bad people (that choose to) have guns... that is scary and that is why the anti gun laws and legislation always loses in the end...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jamie_B Hall Of Fame

Jamie_B

Posted
Posted
[quote name='bengalrick' post='474356' date='Apr 18 2007, 07:08 PM']i agree w/ jamie that in those two instances the gun laws would have prevented them getting guns...

but jamie, the problems lies in the fact that you can make a gun out of shit around the house... take away legally purchased guns and then literally only the bad people (that choose to) have guns... that is scary and that is why the anti gun laws and legislation always loses in the end...[/quote]



Are you allowed to go out and purchase a bomb?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...