Since our conservative( idiot) friends like living in the fantasyland past so much, limit gun ownership to those weapons which were available when the constitution was written. Originally Posted by drluv1Way to keep it peaceful! LOL. You make such a compelling argument with your compliments thrown in for added measure.
Gun Laws
Why Libertarians Support Equal Rights for America's Gun Owners
Libertarians, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of our civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America's millions of gun owners are people too.
Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone's permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.
Constitutional Rights
America's founders fought the Revolutionary War to throw off British tyranny. Most of the revolutionaries owned and used their own guns in that war. After the war, in 1789, the 13 American States adopted the Constitution, creating the federal government. Before ratifying the Constitution, the people demanded a Bill of Rights to prevent our government from depriving them of their liberties as the British had done.
One of the most important protections we have against government tyranny is that we are presumed innocent of any crime until proven guilty, before a jury, in a proper trial.
Gun control advocates would declare all gun owners guilty without trial, simply for owning guns, even though millions of them have never used their guns to harm another person. Such blanket condemnation is immoral, unfair and contrary to the principles on which America was founded.
The Prohibition Lesson
Gun control advocates are much like the prohibitionists of the early 20th Century. By making liquor illegal, they spawned organized crime, caused bloody, violent turf wars and corrupted the criminal justice system. Today's war on drugs has exactly the same results.
Prohibition didn't stop liquor use; the drug laws can't stop drug use. Making gun ownership illegal will not stop gun ownership.
The primary victim of these misguided efforts is the honest citizen whose civil rights are trampled as frustrated legislators and police tighten the screws.
Banning guns will make guns more expensive and give organized crime a great opportunity to make profits in a new black market for weapons. Street violence will increase in new turf wars. Criminals will not give up their guns. But, many law abiding citizens will, leaving them defenseless against armed bandits.
The Right of Self Defense
Libertarians agree with the majority of Americans who believe they have the right to decide how best to protect themselves, their families and their property. Millions of Americans have guns in their homes and sleep more comfortably because of it. Studies show that where gun ownership is illegal, residential burglaries are higher. A man with a gun in his home is no threat to you if you aren't breaking into it.
The police do not provide security in your home, your business or the street. They show up after the crime to take reports and do detective work. The poorer the neighborhood, the riskier it is for peaceful residents.
Only an armed citizenry can be present in sufficient numbers to prevent or deter violent crime before it starts, or to reduce its spread. Interviews with convicted felons indicate that fear of the armed citizen significantly deters crime. A criminal is more likely to be driven off from a particular crime by an armed victim than to be convicted and imprisoned for it. Thus, widespread gun ownership will make neighborhoods safer.
Foolish politicians and police now seek to ban semi-automatic "assault rifles". They ignore the fact that only honest citizens will comply; criminals will still have them. Such a ban will only increase the criminals' ability to victimize the innocent.
Personal Responsibility
Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.
Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.
Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.
Isnt the constitution written that if you commit a felony, you are no longer allowed to vote? you have relingquished your right to vote due to the felony crime you committed. That should eliminate that discussion entirely. Originally Posted by JustapervertDepends on the State. A felon can lobby anywhere.
Depends on the State. A felon can lobby anywhere.Why shouldn't an American citizen regain his rights after he's paid his debt to society?
Felons and the Right to Vote - New York Times
www.nytimes.com › COLLECTIONS › VOTING RIGHTS
Jul 11, 2004 – In four states, including New York, felons on parole cannot vote, but felons on probation can. In some states, felons must formally apply for ...
Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights - NYTimes.com
www.nytimes.com/.../felons-finding-it-easy-to-regain-gun-rights.htm...
Nov 13, 2011 – Decades of lobbying have loosened laws, allowing felons to regain gun ... that felons should be able to reclaim their gun rights just as they can ...
So can we get off the gun did it in this case.
Originally Posted by offshoredrilling
Today everywhere did the moment of silence and a lot of places did the 26 church bells. I literally live on the same block as a cathedral, I couldn't help but cry when they did the 26 bells this morning. It is overwhelming to think about the magnitude of this horrific tragedy.there should have been 27..
Sick people are sick, if we restrict guns it wont do much but take them away from good people. They will move to bombs, poisoning, or god knows what else. Sadly if there is a will there is a way.
So sadOriginally Posted by Lexxxy
ill say it again and ill say it a month from now, the 40 parents that are burying thier six year old kids have already formed a committe and are going to washginton and i dont think they are going there to back the nra on assualt weapons and the rounds that are available.Wrong.... Your ignorance on the subject shines through every time you use the wrong terminology. It was not an assault weapon. It was a Bushmaster Semi-automatic rifle he used, no different than any other semi-automatic hunting rifle. The parents can form as many committee's as they want. Oh well, another anti-gun lobby. No big deal. The NRA is not going to lose anything.
nra is going to lose this one big time. Originally Posted by bjwstw
we move on now, no one is taking anyones guns away, its not about your hunting rifle, Originally Posted by bjwstwYep, I agree..... No one is taking any of my guns, EVER.
its about the kids getting 8-10 bullet holes in them in a kindergaten class Originally Posted by bjwstwYep, I think everyone can agree that is a problem.
the military assualt weapon that was used to kill them. Originally Posted by bjwstwIgnorance again. it WAS NOT a military assault weapon. I know, it does no help my argument. I would rather hurt my argument as long as the facts are true. That is better than people who spew misinformation and ignorance.
just like after 9.11, our country changed, we change again. Originally Posted by bjwstwNot everyone agrees that the changes that occurred after 9-11 were good. I would argue that our county is worse off now than before the changes. Change is not always good. Sometimes it is better to go back to the way it was.
were not going to arm teachers, heck you conseratives cry about your taxes now and the schools, whos going to pay for the guns and the training? certainly not the nra. Originally Posted by bjwstwI personally know 4 teachers who would willingly carry their weapons to school and take any additional training without having to receive any more salary.
im all for putting armed police in each and every school but i dont think thats realistic, by the way in colorado shooting there were 2 armed guards in the school at the time of the assault. so again didnt stop it. Originally Posted by bjwstwAll the more reason to have armed teachers. They would be able to respond much faster. Those cops were probably on a donut break.
also these shooters walk in with armor, are we going to put armor on teachers?? Originally Posted by bjwstwJust shows you their mentality. They are prepared enough to wear armor, do you really think that someone with such a mindset is not also going to make sure they take the time to find an "illegal" weapon to go along with that armor? Do we also have to ban body armor?
the assault weapons and the rounds will be banned, no doub tin my mind its going to happen.Your opinion doesn't mean much to me. Your argument is strewn with inaccuracies and you make too many ill informed assumptions. You are also clouded by you biased left wing agenda. Hell, even Communist China wants the United States to disarm it's citizens. No wonder so many liberals agree with communists. Maybe if you moved to China, you would be much happier.
we move now, boehner is working on plan c. lol
what a disgrace that party is, embarassing
he puts up a plan to make obama look weak and in the end he cant even pass it in his own party
embarassing. Originally Posted by bjwstw
Your ignorance on the subject shines through every time you use the wrong terminology. It was not an assault weapon. Originally Posted by GPLet's stop putting people down and arguing about "terminology", and concentrate on talking about weapons - whatever you want to call them - whose only purpose is to kill a lot of people in a very short time.
Your opinion doesn't mean much to me. Originally Posted by GPI don't understand why philosophical disagreements have to be personalized.
Let's stop putting people down and arguing about "terminology", and concentrate on talking about weapons - whatever you want to call them - whose only purpose is to kill a lot of people in a very short time. Originally Posted by jackfengshuiYou can't have a fair discussion if people on one side of the argument keep using a term that is totally wrong and misleading.
I don't understand why philosophical disagreements have to be personalized. Originally Posted by jackfengshuiI think you do understand Jack. Just following someone else's example on here.
Dove/GP ... Thanks for your contributions but we get it!You're right. So in doing my part to get this discussion back on track, let me, in spite of its stupidity, answer GP's question. Just a warning: a simple yes/no is not an option here.Originally Posted by DDarkness
Can you acknowledged that guns, in the hands of qualified and trained individuals subject to background checks, prevent crime and improve public safety? Originally Posted by GPIf you're asking if police having guns makes for a safer society, then i'd say yes.
Wrong.... Your ignorance on the subject shines through every time you use the wrong terminology. It was not an assault weapon. Originally Posted by GPSemantics. Nothing more than semantics.
I would rather hurt my argument as long as the facts are true. That is better than people who spew misinformation and ignorance.More irony, this coming from the guy who claimed there's no difference between a semi-automatic and a six-shooter - until his argument was dependent on there being a difference between a semi-automatic and a six-shooter.
Your opinion doesn't mean much to me. Your argument is strewn with inaccuracies and you make too many ill informed assumptions. You are also clouded by you biased left wing agenda.See previous comment.
So there's my answer GP. Originally Posted by DooveWell thought out and well written. Kudos! I don't agree with all of it, but I can respect an opinion when presented without the sour bite.
More irony, this coming from the guy who claimed there's no difference between a semi-automatic and a six-shooter - until his argument was dependent on there being a difference between a semi-automatic and a six-shooter. Originally Posted by DooveI never mentioned a "six shooter". There is a big difference between the two and I know very well since I own both types.
Let's stop putting people down and arguing about "terminology", and concentrate on talking about weapons - whatever you want to call them - whose only purpose is to kill a lot of people in a very short time.I'm never giving up on these two points. I swore I would not respond here any further, but these are killing me....
. Originally Posted by jackfengshui