Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire GET ROSIE AT HER OWN HOME!!!

If we put the criminals in the slammer and leave them there we wont have to worry about them "getting their hands on firearms". After all, if a felon can get his hands on a gun then that means he has been let out of jail after a previous offense. HOSS

Rusty - The same argument is made by the antis: When the founders recognized our right to keep and bear arms, they never imagined high-capacity "assault weapons" so therefore the second amendment doesn't apply to them. If the second amendment recognizes our right to only own firearms (the main military tool at the time), and its purpose is to insure that we can defend ourselves not only against crime but also against a tyrranical government, how are we supposed to do it when firearms become obsolete? They just about have in modern warfare. How many firearms were used in Iraq? When faced with nukes and smart missiles, an oppressed public, armed with even full-auto rifles, has little chance. Let's imagine that railguns and weapons that incapacitate or kill at a distance with microwaves are common military weapons. I think that (or something similar) is a feasible reality in the future, maybe in the present for all I know. Does the public have the right to the same, or are they off limits because they are not firearms? They aren't weapons of "mass destruction" but they are also not firearms.<P>Just some wild thoughts to fuel the discussion. I think there's no doubt that public ownership of smart missiles and nukes would be disastrous. I'm basically with Arkhunter on this, but I have to wonder where is the best place to draw the line and yet not defeat the purpose? -al

Arkhunter,<P>It is hard for me to believe that you are from Arkansas, since they have a long tradition of hunting and fishing, passed on from father to son, at a much younger age than 18.<P>I have been shooting, initially closely supervised, since I was 3. I gave my son his first rifle when he was 6 and intend to do the same with my daughter when she turns 6 this month. Your mention that people under the age of 18 should not be allowed to posess or carry weapons is contrary to much of the sporting tradition of this country where the love of hunting and a knowledge of weapons is instilled at an early age in our children. I would hope you would consider the impact of your idea. <P>Do you seriously consider that another restriction on gun ownership would stop someone from murdering another person? How many laws can they execute you for? And how many times? <P>There is a significant difference between gun ownership and car ownership/driving, in this country. The right to bear arms is a right. There is no right to drive. <P>The problem with your whole position is that any restrictions inevitably lead to the call for more when that set inevitably does not prevent crime. Finally you have an Australia, no guns, rising crime and rising crimes against persons. Now what? Crime and murder is a human condition and will not go away with a total ban on guns, but our ability to protect our freedoms will.

PS, <P>Screw it, I'm voting more than once, you can bet the antis are, and this is not some field of honor with rules, this is war and we know the first rule of war. "There Ain't NO RULES."

Since when do ordinary people have access to M-16's and fully automatic rifles?Are you talking about AR-15's and MAK-90's,Arkhunter?So what the hell difference does it make if a person,who has never broken any laws,goes to a rock quarry and fires off 200 rounds in full OR semi-auto?If he's not going to break the law,it doesn't matter if he has a L.A.W.S. rocket!Klibold and Harris had a frigging .22 and an old shotgun.McVeigh used a turd bomb.Im sick and tired of these old,viagra addicted, farts that say they support the N.R.A. and gun owners but just mess there depends if someone has an S.K.S. or MAK-90.'If it doesn't have a wood stock and look like my daddy's shotgun then I have a problem with it'.Sporting guns is not what the 2nd Amendment is about.I love the latest spin out by libs..."the founding fathers never envisioned 30rd. mags and A.K.'s they would have never written the 2nd".Bull****.Muskets at that time WERE military arms,the same guns civilians owned.With that kind of logic then the internet,T.V.,radio and electic press's are not included in the 1st Amendment since they were not in existance at the time of the signing.

I responded to Rosie's poll yesterday. at that tme the "no gun control" votes were 82%. Looking at Rosie I'm surprised that she isn't more concerned with harpoon control! curmudgeon

I have to agree with Stinkey Balls. If you continue the logic used by some on this board and elseware, all modern technology should be regulated if not banned entirely as it did not exist at the time of the Constitution. No electricity or electronic media, no motorised vehicles, modern medicines, high rise buildings, women or non landed voters, civil rights, Etc. or at the very least highly restricted as no one had it then. No I do not advocate nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction, but find no problem with modern fire arms the infantry man has at his disposal. They are after all just "ugly", not functionaly different from some "sporting arms". I am sorry, but people were more cautious of others rights and feelings back then as there were consequences not toothless laws to make them restrict their own actions. Right, wrong, morality and ethics are learned behavior, teaching of these values is what we must do, not pass more and more laws against or for the regulation of tools. I no not whom I paraphrase but it goes like this. <B>"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY".</B> also I believe it was Ben Franklin who said <B>"A PERSON WHO IS WILLING TO GIVE UP A LITTLE FREEDOM FOR A LITTLE SECURITY DESERVES NEITHER."</B><P>------------------<BR>T LEE<BR>Remember: There is no such thing as OVERKILL. Just a generous margin of SAFETY! <P>APATHY...Freedoms greatest enemy!

T LEE, your're absolutley right! If anything is protected under the 2nd amendment, it is a military style weapon. This all boils down to morality and responsability. If you are to be free, you"ve got a responsability to conduct yourself in an appropriate manner. You cannot abuse your freedom. Taking away freedom from all, to control abuses is nothing but a band-aid. Our kids have to be taught self control, not gun control.<BR>7mmbuster<BR>Trust in God and Fear Nothing

Man, where do I start?<P>I guess by saying thanks to Rusty Gunn first. We may be the only two who believe we need SOME restrictions!<P>Hoss-We cant keep every felon in prison forever. Some serve their sentence and get out on parole. It happens every day.<P>Ellie Mae-I think I read your post wrong. Are you saying that the public should have access to smart missiles and nuclear weapons also? Surely not.<P>If It Flies It Dies-You are right about the age part. When I wrote that I was thinking about the young thugs and gang members who carry guns. I wasnt meaning kids using guns to hunt. I did start carrying a gun myself at an early age and allowed my son to do the same. If Im ever fortunate enough to have grandchildren who hunt, Ill do it the same with them.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="2">old,viagra addicted, farts</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Ive been called a lot of things in my day, but I gotta tell you, thats a first! <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="2">Since when do ordinary people have access to M-16's and fully automatic rifles?Are you talking about AR-15's and MAK-90's,Arkhunter?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Thats exactly my point! Please go back and read my previous posts.<P>I dont think EVERYONE should be allowed to own guns with NO restrictions!<P>Thats exactly the way the question reads and it seems to be the consensus for how most of you want it to be. <P>I just think you need to really think about it.<P>Seriously. Do you truly think that average citizens should have access to every weapon available to the military? <P>Think about what this could mean!<P>Someone like say, Bill Gates, could buy and operate his own battleship? Have his very own nuclear weapon or smart missiles?<P>Maybe thats taking it to an extreme, but it seems to be what some of you are saying.<P>There has to be restrictions. If its simply to say that convicted felons or mentally unstable people cant own guns then thats a restrction. But its one I think we can live with.<P>We have restrictions on everything. Guns should be included even though I also feel that the right to own guns is guaranteed in the Constitution.<P>Other rights are also guaranteed in the Constitution but they too have restrictions. <P>

I was probably rambling without making a clear point. I'm basically with you, Arkhunter, in theory. Not EVERYBODY should have guns with NO restrictions. Minors have no rights because they are immature, and felons gave them up when they became felons. But at the same time I have very little faith in legal restrictions making any kind of real difference, especially in a society that worries about a scumbag's "rights" and "self-esteem" more than accountability. Economics probably plays a bigger role in who has guns. Also, when I see a poll that gives me only a handful of choices, I check the box that fits best. For what polls are worth.<P>I certainly don't advocate civilian ownership of nukes and smart missiles. A psycho on a roof with a rifle is one thing - it's the price of freedom. A psycho with a nuclear bomb is another. But I question whether the original justification, as clearly stated in the 2nd amendment, is really even remotely possible in modern times. Are we dreaming? That's not to say that keeping the government in check is no longer a valid concern, just that I doubt we could really do it, even if we did have an M16 in every household and didn't have our own complacency and gullibility to contend with. I'm no warfare tactics expert, but what could we do, even if armed with full-auto firearms and ample motivation, if faced with an oppressive government in control of modern weapons of such power and sophistication that they makes our M16's look like sharp sticks? Has the 2nd amendment become merely symbolic? -al

You made some excellent points.<P>I think we have far too many gun laws on the books now, but a few of them we can live with and even need in my opinion.<P>We couldnt possibly pass a law that would end crime or murders. <P>Like you said, "its the price we pay for freedom".<P>------------------<BR> <A HREF="http://TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com" TARGET=_blank>TheSouthernOutdoorsman.com</A>