Lateral-g Forums - Your views on guns.

Lateral-g Forums (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/index.php)

- Off Topic Forums (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=19)

- - Your views on guns. (https://www.lateral-g.net/forums/showthread.php?t=41294)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiffav8 (Post 480065)

The great gun debate doesn't need to go on for ever, but sadly to many people want to tell everyone else how they should live their lives. Problem is that it's GOOD people who are being attacked by people who have good intentions. The attackers (and yes that's how I view them) are seriously miss guided in their views of what the cause of the problems is and in how to solve it. The true lack of respect comes into play when they are proven to be wrong and lash out in anger and try to make supporters look stupid. There are easy answers, but no one wants to seriously talk about them. Doing so would open a huge can of worms and it would prove that the way things have been setup (by them) has failed.

The man claims to support the constitution yet posts this link http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013...-shooting?lite as proof that to many idiots legally own guns. In the article it says that this has been happening for years and is usually aimed at one person. Ummm...that's a gang related, criminal act. Which means ILLEGAL guns. Bottom line is, this isn't new News. It's only become more popular to show/print as the debate has heated up. If Supersport supports the constitution as he claims, then he should be able to see that. IF he supports the constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked by people who don't understand it. His view is one of those who takes the media headlines as 100% truth and forms his opinion after reading the ticker or hearing a two minute story/debate. IF he supported the constitution he would educate himself on the matter and become involved. Do I expect him to have the exact same view as me? No. However, I do expect him to do more than spout off comments like that. There are to many idiots allowed to drive (probably far more than those who own guns) and yet no one is saying crap about that. Yeah...it's that simple. And just so you know....I am and will always be the first one to call the idiot with a gun out and help correct his ways. I've gone after two very good friends and I wasn't nice about it. They both have taken classes and are now safe, responsible shooters/gun owners. Do I like making my friends feel like children? No, but I care enough to be involved and to help them. If more people where active in their community, things would be very different. My point? If you want a positive change, become involved!!

I figured someone would throw the Moderator card. Hey, I am still a member here and YES, I can be moderated. I have not crossed the line, though I have walked right up to it. Not the normal kind of posting you see from me...is it.

Supersport is casting stones and adding fuel to the fire. It was done in a very casual way for sure. So either he's attacking and trying to be the friendly guy about it, or he's uneducated on the subject. The later would make anyone a moron in my opinion. I simply cast those stones back and I wasn't all P.C. about it. I will not write an apology to Supersport. I stand behind my post and I will continue to view him as I do (on this subject) until he does something to show me otherwise. Don't take that to mean that I think he is a bad person, or that I would do harm to him. He's welcome into my home, like any other Lateral-G member. We have a difference of opinion and as heated as that may get, I will not view him as a bad person. A start would be to post up some statisticians (that are backed up and legit) that show how Idiot owned Legal guns are are causing the problem or contributing to it. Making a statement and then posting something that is unrelated (other than it has guns in it's content) isn't helping.

If someone want's respect then they should know better than to open their mouth and spew garbage they know nothing about and can't back up. I don't expect everyone to have the same view as me and no person who is educated on a subject is stupid or a moron. If a person is looking for meaningful discussion on a subject or to learn I will always throw my full support behind that....regardless of what their view is in the end.

I too stand behind my post as well. You feel you have walked right up to the line, I happen to believe you crossed it. But that is a matter of opinion. You have already stated you like facts. Since you have posted this response to me I am curious if you are ready to put your money where your mouth is? You stated that there are easy answers to the gun debate. I would love to hear them. I am very curious to know if you have ever read the United States Constitution and your thoughts on why the second amendment was enacted.

Oh, the reason I threw the moderator card......After the Boston Marathon thread got a little personal, you posted "keep it civil kids, DON'T MAKE ME COME IN HERE" There wasn't too much civil about your personal attack on SuperSport.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince@MSperfab (Post 480116)

so you are taking it upon yourself to infringe on a possible legal purchaser the right to own a gun? interesting. Is this based on racial profiling or gut feeling?

im not taking away anybody's "right" to own a gun.... I am unaware of any law that says I have to sell to somebody simply because its legal for them to own it.

the point was more that as a gun supporter, I dont think that EVERYBODY legally capable of owning firearms..... should.

I dont have anymore to add to this disscussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperSport (Post 480099)

OMG! You are kidding right?
I do support the Constitution and I believe it should not messed with by politicians that are trying to make a name for themselves. Of course we should keep the right to bear arms. My point is this. The irresponsible gun owners are going to ruin it for the responsible gun owners. Do I own a gun? No, do I have immediate family that owns guns yes. Have I gone to a gun range and shot weapons before, yes. Am I someone that thinks gun owners need to be held accountable when their weapons are used in crimes oh, YES I DO! Too many weapons end up in the wrong hands and this is not an issue it seems. If you want to own a gun then you better be responsible for that weapon. A Moron (a word you used) gun owner bought a gun for a 5 year old who then shot and killed his 2 year old sister. Pretty stupid huh. I would never allow that to happen so I, as a responsible person, choose not to own a gun. I would feel responsible if I owned a gun had it stolen and then it was used to kill someone.
People seem to think only Mexico has a gun problem but not us Americans. I think this is hilarious. I also think it is hilarious if you think California has problems unlike the rest of the country. Google how many kids get killed every year in this country and see if kids only get killed in California.
I think when you have loved ones that are killed by guns in the wrong hands to will see gun control in a different light. I have family that are police officers and the stories I hear from are crazy. Too many weapons in the wrong hands. But I still think only responsible people should be allowed to own guns.
If, you cant account for all your weapons then all your weapons should be taken away because you are a Moron gun owner.
You will soon see certain guns banned by your politicians. Just wait.
Peace!

.

You say that irresponsible gun owners are going to ruin it for all the others. Please define your idea of a irresponsible gun owner and a responsible one.

You also state that gun owners need to be held accountable for crimes committed with their guns. You appear to be saying that the owner of stolen gun that was used in a crime should be held accountable. How would that be fair? Neither the gun or it's owner committed the crime. The person who holds the gun did and they should be held accountable. Should you be held responsible if your car is stolen and used in a drive by, or used to drive through a group of children who are waiting for the school bus? Of course not. This line of thinking is crazy. Place the blame at the feet of those who earn it. The way you say it, it looks like you are out to get paid by the one person that can afford it.

I agree 100% with you that to many weapons (of all types) end up in the hands of those that shouldn't have them. That is what the real debate should be, but sadly it's not. My wife is a 911 dispatcher and I hear about everything that happens in Las Vegas. EVERYTHING...weather I want to or not. haha I also have some fantastic friends who are officers. Listening to them complain about how our system works against them in so many ways makes one realize why we have so many criminals and why that is only getting worse.

Children being killed, by any means, is horrible. I am not some heartless monster, but thank you for trying to paint me as such. Now if your point was to say that IF the gun of an owner who fails to take preventative measures from a child having access to a his/her firearm is used by a child to shoot another child (in home shooting kind of thing) should be held accountable, I totally agree with you. Now if a gun is stolen and then used by two criminals to kill a child (this recently happened when to robbers killed a baby, because the mother did have any money) then no, the owner should not be held accountable. Now before you take that and run, my personal belief is that there is a right and a wrong way to store a firearm.

I'm not sure where or why you seem to think I am against California. There are some strange laws there for sure. Travel much? The people of the United States is very different from one region to the next. You apparently missed my point.

Oh and I have had loved ones killed by guns. Have you?

You're last line

Quote:

You will soon see certain guns banned by your politicians. Just wait.
Peace!

says it all the proof I needed to show that you don't support the constitution. Thank you for making that clear and for the threat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by force-fed-snake (Post 480110)

I'm not only a gun owner, but I hold an FFL, I turn down buyers all the time... simply because I dont think they should own a firearm. granted I'm "small time" gun smith/dealer.... and every sale is a big deal to the bottom line... BUT its my duty... not as a responsible dealer.... but as a human to do my part if I don't think someone should own a firearm. I do have (and use) the right to refuse service to anybody

I fall into the gray area too... where just because somebody can legally own a weapon.... doesnt really mean they should

I see the bigger problem being everyone trying to fix a system with a one size fits all patch.... and that simply is not the how system works. I dont have all the answers.. I can only simply do what I can do. I dont see the system changing anytime soon.

Bravo! I take your statement not as the Racist thing as others have stated, but as that of a responsible person. If more people took an interest in being responsible we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I applaud you for realizing that firearm ownership isn't for you. It's not for everyone.

You are 100% spot on. There is no one size fits all there. America, God Love her is complicated. Not infringing on the good citizens rights, while solving issues is a delicate balance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vince@MSperfab (Post 480130)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In this case Jody. Are you saying that I should keep my views and opinion to myself because I am a Moderator?

Quote:

Originally Posted by garickman (Post 480132)

I'm glad to see you stand behind your post as I have. I am also glad to hear you ask about my answer. It's simple but probably not any more popular than my posting to Supersport. But I'm not really one to always do what's popular..it's not always right and right isn't always popular as the saying goes. As for the Boston thread..you'll have to accept that there was more going on than was obvious. Sorry, I know it's not an answer that brings resolve on that.

Yes I have read the Constitution. Thank you. Being curious as to why and how our founding fathers came about setting things up the way they did, I actually enjoy reading on the subject. Not an easy task they had and it took a lot of debate and give in order to finalize it.

My view on the 2nd is simple. It was setup as a means of balance. A way for the people to be balanced against their government.

What's my simple answer? It's not an answer to just the great gun debate A: Hold those who intentionally do harm accountable. I don't mean lock them up for years and years, while providing them with everything under the sun (our criminals seem to have it pretty good). I mean three strikes and your out...as in dead. Harsh I know, but I'm not talking about speeding tickets here. Strict punishment that is enforced works. B: People in general need to be more involved in their community...on every level. People need to be involved in their neighborhood as well as their local and state and programs. Basically a let's help each other attitude. There are some great programs out there that promote this, take the Big Bother, Big Sister program for example or the Boy/Girl Scouts. Even better would be people just doing it of their own accord. I know...kind of Bill and Ted-ish.

Our continuation isn't the problem. We are. History holds the answers if we care to pay attention to it. We need to be asking "why have things changed and how did we get to this point". That would mean that people would have to accept that their good intent was in fact the wrong way to resolve a problem. It would also mean that we as a society and individuals need to make a moral and just change.

I'm not the greatest with words, but that's my answer.

A few points:

1. We have a mental health and parenting problem disguised as a gun problem in this country.

2. NO ONE is anti-gun. If they want "less guns on the street" what they really want is people wearing black and blue uniform to use their guns to take away someone elses guns. So they are still pro-gun.

3. Chicago

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewb70 (Post 479567)

Tony, you're probably already on a bunch of "lists." LOL

Andrew

You and me both brother. :D That's what I get for supporting the Constitution, ironically.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spiffav8 (Post 480137)

Thanks for the response Curtis. In regards to the discussion we are having about your initial response to SuperSport, I am afraid as gentlemen we will have to agree to disagree. I can admire someone who sticks to what they believe.

The reason I ask if you read the Constitution is because in post 55 in your response to me, you stated that if SuperSport supports the Constitution then he should be angry that it's being unfairly attacked attacked by people who don't understand it. After seeing your response on the second amendment it appears that it is you that doesn't understand.

The second amendment states "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"

When the second amendment was drafted, The United States did not have standing Army. As a result, our new nation depended on on-call militias. Because the people are members of a reserve militia, they keep and own there on military equipment, hence the wording in the second amendment.

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.

On June 26th, 2008, the United States Supreme Court handed down a decision in regards to D.C vs. Heller. The Court affirmed an individual right to possess a firearm without respect to whether the bearer is a militia member, and that these arms can only be possessed for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. Heller also confirmed that your 2nd Amendment rights are not absolute or unlimited. Concealed weapons can be banned by states, you can limit their possession by felons and the mentally ill, and you can ban carrying a weapon in certain areas and regulate the sale of weapons. Particularly dangerous and unusual weapons can also be regulated or banned.

Many people (it appears yourself included) wrongly believe in the insurrection theory of the second amendment. Under this view, the second amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms against self defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government. When the government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect" or take up arms against it.

I'm sure as one who understands the Constitution so well you can agree that the Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitutions meaning. You might not like that but that is the way it is. In 1951, Dennis vs. The United States, The Supreme Court issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. In their rejection they wrote the following. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperSport (Post 480099)

People seem to think only Mexico has a gun problem but not us Americans. I think this is hilarious. I also think it is hilarious if you think California has problems unlike the rest of the country. Google how many kids get killed every year in this country and see if kids only get killed in California.
I think when you have loved ones that are killed by guns in the wrong hands to will see gun control in a different light. I have family that are police officers and the stories I hear from are crazy. Too many weapons in the wrong hands. But I still think only responsible people should be allowed to own guns.
If, you cant account for all your weapons then all your weapons should be taken away because you are a Moron gun owner.
You will soon see certain guns banned by your politicians. Just wait.
Peace!

.

The larger US metro areas have a major gun problem, the problem is "our politicians" are going after the law abiding gun owners, the guns that are a problem are possessed by criminals or soon to be criminals. In rural Oregon areas where I prefer to visit there isn't a gun problem and most people/households have multiple firearms and the firearms incidents don't even make a blip on the radar screen........why is that?

Ignorant politicians with little to no firearm experience and knowledge who are proposing laws that target law abiding gun owners and actually believe they will solve the problems are the problem.

They won't go after the criminals because it would require too much effort, be too dangerous, and won't generate any fee (tax) revenue.

Believing politicians will come up a with a solution to the gun problem in the US is unrealistic........especially after the Benghazi, IRS profiling, and AP wire-tapping incidents.

PS - Study history........Peace is a fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by garickman (Post 480143)

Contrary to popular belief, the second amendment was not enacted to fend off a tyrannical government. There is no law, statute or Constitutional provision that exists in this country to allow someone to fight domestic tyranny, which is generally described as oppressive with absolute power vested in a single ruler. By definition, the United States cannot be tyrannical because it is a represented democracy where you have the right to overthrow any person or party every two, four or six years depending on the office. Your recourse is political action and being enfranchised to vote, organize and petition.

That is actually funny, the fact that you feel that a government can not be tyrannical due to the fact that is a reprsentative republic couldn't be more false. During the inseption of the country, only land owners could vote, meaning only people with skin in the game. If you weren't paying in, you didn't get a say in were the moneys collected by the government would go. That since has changed, now I fear that more then 50% of the country is on the doal, and voting in people to give them more,more,more, and taking from us, leaving us with less,less,less. Less, money, less rights, and less freedom. Our representatives no longer represent the producers of this once great country, they represent the dead wood. We need to get back to our roots.

The gun argument is only one of many infringements that the government seems to be taking these days. That is a simple one, it states: Shall not be infringed . That needs no further explanation