Freedom also carries responsibility

Discussion in 'Gun Laws and Politics' started by thomas pendrake, Feb 1, 2014.

  1. thomas pendrake

    thomas pendrake Beginner Shooter

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Posts:
    56
    Likes Received:
    1
    There has been a lot of debate in America over the years about the issue of gun ownership. Certainly having access to guns for the general public may help ensure that no dictatorship is established. That does not mean that anyone who wants to control an arsenal of crowd killing weapons should be able to. If every household has a gun readily accessible, every criminal will feel obligated to carry a gun. I would be willling to bet that every person reading this post will know some people who they do not want to have a gun. I do not want to have to be in fear of being in the middle of a gunfight every time I go to a restaurant. But I do want to be able to legally acquire a gun if I want to. The best way to protect gun rights is to promote sane regulation. The Federal government cannot prevent the States from maintaining "well regulated militias" but it can enact laws to prevent criminals from maintaining armed gangs.
    dansmith likes this.
  2. Thomas

    Thomas Decent Shooter

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2014
    Posts:
    241
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    The problem is you have to define "sane" regulation; and this is difficult. Many people think that pistols should be banned. Another issue is the uninformed. When you have policy makers; completely ignorant about guns, the end result cannot be good. A slippery slope also exists within the realm of gun laws. If one law is passed, the authorities will try to take more and more. For this reason, gun right activists will do everything in their power to block any new gun law, regardless of it's validity.

    Defense against the government is a major reason of course. When you consider all factors(manpower; financial cost, ground covered; resupply; psychological effects; long term suppression), the US military would not stand a chance in disarming the American citizens; and they know it. Not to mention the military may not go for it. This is the reason power hungry officials realize they need to do it slowly. One "sane" law after another; until we're disarmed.

    What it boils down to is the police being responsible for controlling the situation. People often forget the police are here to serve the people; not the other way around. If the American citizens want to be just as well armed, the police have no authority to even suggest otherwise. Most people want criminal gun activities to stop; that is what policy makers, and police should focus on; instead of passing more restrictions on lawful gun owners.

    The constitution is designed to protect everyone; not just the majority. If 10 people in a room are uncomfortable with 3 others; that happen to have guns, it's too bad for the 10. Why? Because everyone has rights; and these do not include being comfortable with the decisions of everyone else. You mention enacting laws to prevent criminals from maintaining armed gangs; and I completely agree, but none of these laws should reflect on the lawful person's rights. To summarize; there is no such thing as a "sane" gun law, because it's entirely subjective.

    The federal government cannot even mandate states obey the gun laws they pass. This is part of state constitutions; and is utterly brilliant in design. During the "assault rifle" talks, 13 states; right off the bat, told the president they will not enforce the laws. The feds cannot do anything about it, short of sending FBI agents into every state to act like a local police force. There are even limitations on this.
  3. thomas pendrake

    thomas pendrake Beginner Shooter

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Posts:
    56
    Likes Received:
    1
    One of my concerns is that the rabid pro-gun fanatics (which are a minority of gun owners) will harden the anti-gun lobby to the point where enough people will become anti-gun to repeal the second amendment. On another forum, I was accused of being some sort of commie freak by a person who said that mass killings of little children is just fine as long as no one tries to take his assault rifles away. He even seemed to think that weapons-grade plutonium should be available. All of this was because I said that revolvers were good because they were not a good crowd killing weapon. My argument is that people who understand the concept of responsible gun ownership need to be part of the process of defining reasonable gun ownership laws. Just saying no controls at all is a good way of convincing people that no guns at all is the best answer. I hope that this forum will foster reasonable debate on the subject. The NRA has made itself look evil to many people, and continues to foster anti-gun sentiment.
  4. GearZ

    GearZ Decent Shooter

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2013
    Posts:
    432
    Likes Received:
    16
    A repeal of the Second Amendment is very unlikely. The only Amendment rolled back in our history was the 18th (via the 21st) and that was for the incredibly boneheaded idea of Prohibition.
  5. thomas pendrake

    thomas pendrake Beginner Shooter

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2013
    Posts:
    56
    Likes Received:
    1
    Some of the extremists on the right seem to believe that repeal of the 2nd amendment is imminent.

    One regulation I would propose on assault type weapons would be to require a permit either issued by the local sheriff who guarantees that the person is responsible and takes responsibility if they aren't, or a number of registered voters, at least 3 and no more that 6, willing to do the same. If you feel safe with your neighbor having the ability to slaughter crowds of children on a whim, you can sign his permit. I'm sure that many of you know people you would not like to see with an assault rifle. If the sheriff from Arizona who likes sweaty men in pink underwear wants his ranchers to have machine guns, let him take personal responsibility for each one who does.

    I don't think people should have the right to carry concealed weapons in public settings unless they have very specific reasons, such as being a law-enforcement officer or some sort of security person. People should not be shot for texting in a movie theater.

    Again, I believe that sane gun owners should have input on sensible regulations.

    I also do not believe that conviction for a non-violent crime should mean (permanent) loss of gun ownership rights.

    I am encouraged by the sanity of the responses thus far. I was shocked by the response on the other forum which seemed to say that the Sandy Hook murders were fine as long as anyone who wanted an assault rifle could get one. My experience is that most gun owners are not raving lunatics, but some are. Not all anti-gun people are lunatics, either. But some are.
  6. dansmith

    dansmith Rookie Shooter

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2014
    Posts:
    9
    Likes Received:
    3
    Mr. Pendrake I agree with you whole-heartedly on this, I like having the opportunity to buy a gun if I wish since I don't have any criminal history, and I agree with the conceal and carry laws to a point, but like you said, I don't like the idea of being in the middle of a gun fight when I go to any public place. I've said this in another thread that the federal government should help to enforce the current laws they have in place instead of making new ones every other week it seems like. Great post!
    thomas pendrake likes this.

Share This Page