WEAPONS BAN

[Skeptilius]

Here's a link to a Christian Science Monitor article dated yesterday that should calm some folks down. The article makes the point that the trend in America today is toward more gun rights and freedom, not less. It's an interesting article..

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0413/p02s01-ussc.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(this may not post as a link so you might have to copy and paste it into your browser to open the article)

[LaUser]

...We need to stand up and say that we are gun owners and we are appalled that an unstable person who should never have obtained a weapon killed someone and the we are for keeping guns out of the hands of such persons...

You have it backwards: I'm not appalled that an unstable person got a gun.

You should be. Because the more this happens, people will find more reason to support anti-gun legislation.

[LaUser]

I realize this will sound like I'm riding the fence and trying to cozy up to both sides, but I honestly belief both LaUser & tfrazier make excellent and valid points. As responsible gun owners, we should voice our displeasure when lunatics who should not have guns somehow obtain them. And we should remind everyone of the millions of responsible gun owners who have never and will never committ such horrible acts with guns. And we should be equally displeased that law-abiding citizens are disallowed the basic human right of self-defense because of "gun free zones".

All of these lines of thought are very valid and very helpful to the cause of educating the general public to the positive benefits of guns and self-defense use of guns. The more the general public sees rational, upstanding gun owners the harder it will be for anti-gunners to demonize anyone who dares own a firearm.

Thanks, You said it better than I did. That is exactly what I meant.

[tfrazier]

You have it backwards: I'm not appalled that an unstable person got a gun.

You should be. Because the more this happens, people will find more reason to support anti-gun legislation.

I said it back in January of 2008, and I stand by it: http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... html?cat=2

[tfrazier]

You have it backwards: I'm not appalled that an unstable person got a gun.

You should be. Because the more this happens, people will find more reason to support anti-gun legislation.

I said it back in January of 2008, and I stand by it: Brady Bunch, Bush, and the NRA Agree on Latest Federal Gun Control Measure

Here's a pertinent excerpt from that article if you don't feel like reading the whole thing:

... The Virginia Tech killer was mentally ill, not stupid. If the gun shop had not sold him a gun that day, he still would have found a way to obtain one and the massacre still would have occurred. The massacre occurred and so many people were killed not because the mentally ill guy got a gun so easily, it occurred because there were no armed citizens present to stop him from going on his rampage. ...

[A-R]

tfrazier, I read the article you posted (you wrote the article, yes?). I respect your opinion and understand the basic point you're making that if a person is too insane or criminal to own a gun then they should be locked up anyway - or, put another way, if you're stable enough to walk the streets, then you're stable enough to own a gun. But I can't agree unconditionally that anyone with history of mental illness or criminal convictions should be allowed to own a gun. It's just not that simple to me. Owning a firearm is a RIGHT of free people. If you committ certain crimes in our society, you give up most of your rights and are no longer free. And if some tragic set of circumstances leaves you too mentally unstable in our society, you also lose some of your rights. This is simply the way it is and must be to maintain civilization. Since we cannot and should not predetermine potential bad behavior (like "pre-crime" in the movie "Minority Report"), then the only way we as a society can know if someone is unfit to live free is if they exhibit some anti-social behavior - at which point we, as a society, determine to what extend their rights should be reduced to prevent a repeat of the anti-social behavior.

Now, that little dissertation is not to imply that all criminals and all mentally ill should be denied the particular right of owning a firearm. There are varying degrees of both, and some people from each group are fit to own firearms. Someone who has battled and since overcome depression should be allowed to own a firearm. Someone who committed a non-violent crime, did their time/paid their fine, and are now free again should be allowed to own a firearm.

But there are some people in this world whose behavior is so far "outside the box" (for lack of a better analogy) that they should never again have the right in a civilized society to own a weapon of any kind. Some examples off the top of my head would be murderers, rapists, people adjudicated or legally diagnosed as insane or seriously mentally defective. In some ways, I agree that these people should just be locked up for life and throw away the key. But criminologists and mental health professionals who know more about these subjects than I'll ever know believe these people can be released back to society with some restrictions on their rights and "get along" with the rest of us under proper supervision. I see this as a more humane choice for such people - if the "experts" are correct - than simply lifetime incarceration. But - under no circumstances - do I believe these people retain the RIGHT to own a firearm.

As I wrote this, I realized often as I was typing the word RIGHT that I could have easily inserted the word PRIVILEGE. I truly believe gun ownership is a RIGHT and not a PRIVILEGE. But I also believe that a society has the RIGHT to take away the RIGHTS of individuals as punishment for and/or prevention of crimes. If I didn't believe in society's RIGHT to do so, then I could not believe as strongly as I do in the death penalty - which is the ultimate example of the RIGHTS of society trumping the RIGHTS of an individual.

[tfrazier]

The rights of society have been used to annihilate individual freedom too often. While a nation and culture would not survive if there were no consideration for society as a whole over the rights of individuals, the danger is that those considerations are always available for evil people to use as an excuse to trample the individual and steal his property.

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Sounds a lot like...
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck[/youtube]

[A-R]

Tim,

I am new here, but I am truly enjoying your posts. Though I may not always agree with your opinions, what you post and some of your writings you link to at the bottom of your signature are very thoughtful and provacative and delivered with a confidence that transcends petty bickering. I had never heard that 2001 Obama audio clip before - very interesting. And I took a moment to read your blog post about Kimber firearms and learned quite a few things - liked your analogy to the Kimber being like an AR-15 vs. an AK-47. I shot my first Kimber about a month ago (owned by a LEO friend), and knocked the X out of the center of the target on my first three shots - amazingly accurate weapon.

Anyway, just thought I'd let you know that I always appreciate a good counterpoint. I can already tell that you and I are just varying degrees of the same basic ideals on many matters.

[tfrazier]

Wow! I'm flattered. Thanks for the wonderful compliments, and the insightful debate.

I'm here for the good natured arguments and debates; that's how I learn. My opinions are not set in stone, but as I age I find that they change less and less...

Of course, sometimes I am 100% wrong. And I admit it when someone convinces me of that.

[dewayneward]

For those that think Obama is "honest" and want to give him a chance.....please look at his record. I will leave my position with Obama and his pro-abortion position alone for a moment and look purely at the 2a piece. His record shows a demonstrated bent towards "common sense" gun ownership. His voting record on this issue is a clear indication of what he thinks about gun ownership. He clearly wants to take away your 2A rights.

Come on people, guns arent about hunting, Do you think this is what he is talking about when he talks about "common sense" ownership as it relates to 2A. Dont believe me, Fox news, drudge report, MCNBC, NPR, etc. go and read his record. It speaks for itself.

The one of the many "half truths" that he has used that is on the tip of my toungue was his promise to not raise taxes for people making under $250,000. What happened a few weeks ago to cigarrettes? Statistically, what percentage of the population that smokes makese under $250,000? Surely y'all can answer because its not above you pay grade?

I am not bashing Mr Obama. I didnt vote for him because of his pro-abortion views, but the 2A position that he holds downright scares me. And if that isnt enough to convince you, peruse that cute little who has CHL's map and notice which state is blue ????

[jimlongley]

Here's a link to a Christian Science Monitor article dated yesterday that should calm some folks down. The article makes the point that the trend in America today is toward more gun rights and freedom, not less. It's an interesting article..

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0413/p02s01-ussc.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(this may not post as a link so you might have to copy and paste it into your browser to open the article)

And a couple of years ago the economy showed an upward trend, are you saying that trends don't change?

[LaUser]

For those that think Obama is "honest" and want to give him a chance.....please look at his record. I will leave my position with Obama and his pro-abortion position alone for a moment and look purely at the 2a piece. His record shows a demonstrated bent towards "common sense" gun ownership. His voting record on this issue is a clear indication of what he thinks about gun ownership. He clearly wants to take away your 2A rights.

Come on people, guns arent about hunting, Do you think this is what he is talking about when he talks about "common sense" ownership as it relates to 2A. Dont believe me, Fox news, drudge report, MCNBC, NPR, etc. go and read his record. It speaks for itself.

The one of the many "half truths" that he has used that is on the tip of my toungue was his promise to not raise taxes for people making under $250,000. What happened a few weeks ago to cigarrettes? Statistically, what percentage of the population that smokes makese under $250,000? Surely y'all can answer because its not above you pay grade?

I am not bashing Mr Obama. I didnt vote for him because of his pro-abortion views, but the 2A position that he holds downright scares me. And if that isn't enough to convince you, peruse that cute little who has CHL's map and notice which state is blue ????

Obama is a politician. That says it all. Without expanding the scope, let's just consider the Presidents of the US, politicians every one. A close examination of their records will show that they say one thing and do another, or do one thing and say something else. Why would anybody think this guy is different? It's got nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. There is no way for any Presidential candidate to take a position without alienating somebody. And like all of us, they are entitled to change their mind.

I see a lot of posting on forums that reflect the concern of the person regarding gun control. And the politicians in Congress and the President are making it worse because they are leaving all of us in limbo, wondering what will happen and when. The good part is they seem to be reluctant to do anything because of the pro-gun mood of the country.

============================================
Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.

Modern liberal thought originated in and influenced the politics of The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France. The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
============================================

[Skeptilius]

Jim Longley wrote: And a couple of years ago the economy showed an upward trend, are you saying that trends don't change?
Well, duh, of course trends change -they have and they do. When they change I'll deal with them in whatever manner is appropriate at the time. If the government ever seriously tried to prevent gun ownership in this country I'll be there with all the rest of you protesting. But until them I'm not going to work myself up into a lather worrying about something that will probably never happen. That is really all I was trying to say in my original post. Obama can't eliminate gun rights on his own, it would take an act of Congress to even try to do that. Then there is the Supreme Court to deal with and I don't believe this conservative court would ever approve a violation of the 2nd amendment like that - unless Congress is willing to re-write the Constitution - and I don't see any interest in doing that at all. Vigilance is fine, staying alert is fine, but hysteria is irrational and impractical. Keeping a cool head, not listening to hearsay and rumor and slanted propaganda makes more sense to me. I'm a very pro-gun guy, but I'm also a very level headed and methodical kind of guy. That is all I was ever trying to say when I started this thread. If some people got the wrong impression, well, sorry bout that.

[tfrazier]

We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analysing possible causes, by trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will.

...he knew how to keep his cool.

Yeah. So how'd that work out for ya, Neville?

One day, we will be sitting around quietly and politely arguing about our second amendment rights by the water cooler at work whilst the government is in the parking lots and our houses removing our guns.

53% voted an administration into office that is clearly anti gun rights and pro abortion. And people tell me not to be hysterical...

Just because no one has created a formal agenda stating they are going to try to take away gun rights does not mean an attempt will not be made.

I am astounded that a culture (CHL holders) built around the concept of being prepared for the worst even though the worst will likely never happen would have voices crying out "don't worry, the government is too busy with other things to go after your guns..." or, "there's too much pro-gun ownership sentiment for them to dare try to take our guns..."

Since when has the will of the people stopped a government from doing anything? How many people are in favor of an income tax? That constitutional perversion was put in place to fund the north during the civil war. Did it go away after the war? Let's see, 145 years and counting...nope, I just sent my income tax off last night.

This administration and congressional den of thieves just needs one excuse and they will take your guns without even a sideways glance at the constitution.

[dewayneward]

dewayneward wrote:
For those that think Obama is "honest" and want to give him a chance.....please look at his record. I will leave my position with Obama and his pro-abortion position alone for a moment and look purely at the 2a piece. His record shows a demonstrated bent towards "common sense" gun ownership. His voting record on this issue is a clear indication of what he thinks about gun ownership. He clearly wants to take away your 2A rights.

Come on people, guns arent about hunting, Do you think this is what he is talking about when he talks about "common sense" ownership as it relates to 2A. Dont believe me, Fox news, drudge report, MCNBC, NPR, etc. go and read his record. It speaks for itself.

The one of the many "half truths" that he has used that is on the tip of my toungue was his promise to not raise taxes for people making under $250,000. What happened a few weeks ago to cigarrettes? Statistically, what percentage of the population that smokes makese under $250,000? Surely y'all can answer because its not above you pay grade?

I am not bashing Mr Obama. I didnt vote for him because of his pro-abortion views, but the 2A position that he holds downright scares me. And if that isn't enough to convince you, peruse that cute little who has CHL's map and notice which state is blue ????


Obama is a politician. That says it all. Without expanding the scope, let's just consider the Presidents of the US, politicians every one.

A close examination of their records will show that they say one thing and do another, or do one thing and say something else.

Why would anybody think this guy is different? It's got nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal. There is no way for any Presidential candidate to take a position without alienating somebody. And like all of us, they are entitled to change their mind.

I see a lot of posting on forums that reflect the concern of the person regarding gun control. And the politicians in Congress and the President are making it worse because they are leaving all of us in limbo, wondering what will happen and when. The good part is they seem to be reluctant to do anything because of the pro-gun mood of the country.

============================================
Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.

Modern liberal thought originated in and influenced the politics of The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France. The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
============================================

Then why did you vote for Mr Obama then? From what you wrote "Obama is a politician, that says it all", you should have either "not voted" <b>OR</b> felt that Mr Obama was more a politician (i.e. a liar) than Mr McCain was????

Further, I am assuming you felt that (and btw, you are using the words Republican and democat and liberal and democrat, I am not....I picked the person, based on their record would be the best person to represent my interests) Mr Obama would represent your interests in gun ownership better than Mr McCain would have. I am also assuming that you selected this based on some form of rational thought vs an emotion based decision, so please tell me what legislation about guns did Mr McCain put through that made you think that Mr Obama was a better person for the job? Basically, give me an example from your quote:

A close examination of their records will show that they say one thing and do another, or do one thing and say something else.

The facts are Mr Obama's record on being against gun ownership for the purposes of 2A are VERY clear....and you know what, he is being very consistent with his voting record on not only this issue, but other issues (unfortunately) that are near and dear to my heart.