I think the "just a tool" argument is kind of a copout.   A grenade is a tool.  A nuclear bomb is a tool.  A rocket launcher is a tool.  Sarin gas is a tool.  Anthrax is a tool.  

These things are all weapons.  A weapon is a tool meant to kill or maim.  As such, it is wise to regulate them differently than one regulates allen wrenches.  In areas where a tool is overwhelmingly used to kill animals, great.  In areas where that tool is overwhelmingly used to kill people, I have no problems with heavy restrictions on that tool.

a well trained martial artist can kill you with no "tools" except his bare hands. should we cut off everyone's hands too? come on, lets be serious. i can take the largest, most powerful firearm in the world, load said firearm, turn safety off on said firearm and lay it down on my coffee table and it won't harm a soul until said firearm is picked up and the trigger is pulled. i promise. we aren't going to get all the guns off the street. that's a fact, there are too many of them. and guess what, the bad guys have them. and won't hesitate to use them. better to have the right and/or have/own a firearm and never need it, than to need it, and not have it. proper education is vital. i've found that many "anti-gun" people, have themselves never had ANY kind of contact with a firearm, let alone used one.  guns aren't going anywhere, get used to it.

I'm Pro-Gun all the way.  The right to bear arms is my constitutional right.  I have the right to defend my family, myself, my property.  Why should only police and soldiers have the right to carry firearms.  Take firearms away from good, honest folks and the only ones left to have a gun is the bad guy.  How often do you hear of people who have gone through the process of getting a carry permit going out to commit a crime.  I'm a supporter of law enforcement and am greatfull to live in this great country our soldiers put their lives on the line so we can have the freedoms we enjoy today. They should have guns.  So should we, if we so wish. 

This quote rings in my head when people say we shouldn't own or carry legally.  "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away"

i have used this site for lots of info while  keeping to myself but this thread drives me crazy so i had to reply
as one stated on here a shot gun patterns out more and is easier to hit a target.... thats true but have you ever tried to pull a shot gun out from under your back
seat while a crackhead is hanging halfway in your window of your vehicle telling you to give him your money? all i can say is my shotgun protects my bed room and my
pistol protects my vehicle you people are just indecisive i mean at least the anti gun people have a point they are trying to stand on how can you say shotguns and rifles
are ok but pistols arent? if i am standing in line at a store with a shotgun in my hand and a guy comes in to rob the place he's just gonna go down the street to another
store however if i have my pistol on my side under my jacket along with my governmentally issued license to carry maybe i will be able to save myself and others from
this idiot....

ATLRIDER, would you like me to point out  a few places where the constitution says "shall not" and the congress and court have defined that to mean "eh, usually not"?  I can go in amendment order if you like...  Besides that, did you miss the part where I keep saying guns are fine, just not handguns?  Go back and read the rest of the thread, monkeyboy.

aimin low, you're again focusing on anecdotes.  How many more times does that other guy blow your brains out with his gun than you defend yourself with yours?  An awful, awful lot, according to the murder and unsolved homicide rates.

So are you saying we should wait. and pray that teh bad guy does not kill you? or have the opportunity to defend oneself and those in his/her immediate area, i take it by your username here. youve had some LEO experience? if so you know that a LEO cant be there instantaneously. i have LEO experience. ive trained  in the usage of firearms of all types and sizes. im  getting my CCW this coming week. so i can carry now. im no longer in law enforcement. so ill be carrying as a civvie. or look at this, prohibition failed miserably. banning guns will as well. it will create a black market for those. as well as ammunition. anyhoo. i know i cant convince an anti gun person of the opposite viewpoint. nor can an anti gun perosn. convince the same. anyhoo Flame on 

Why do poeple keep referring to the second? under incorporation doctrine the 14th amendment the 2nd was not applied to the states after the civil war, thus we have such huge disparity in gun laws amongst states.

The heller decision was a very narrowly crafted case that upholds gun rights and the second amendment but applies only to the federal district of columbia. I look forward to seeing montana's challenge to federal firearms laws under states rights. It could well mean a booming new industry in pro RKBA states. Basicallly we have federal gun regulations because of the feds abuse of..... anyone... anyone... bueller... anyone...?
The interstate commerce act. So if a wepon is manufactured in a state and is never offered for sale to anyone but residents of the state of it's manufacture and is never transported to another stste then federal laws including the NFA do not apply. In essence newly manufactured full auto rifles SMG's etc could be owned by residents of a state.   

I suspect lawman is a law student.

okay, how bout this. making handguns illegal WILL NOT TAKE THEM AWAY!!!!! it won't cut down violent crime. it won't cut down homicide etc. it won't. case in point, WASHINGTON, D.C!!!! they had a ban on civilians owning handguns for a long time. and also, had one of the highest murder rates in the country. FACT. why can't you "anti-gun" or "anti-handgun" people see that? i mean, it's common sense really. just because you make a law against something does not mean that it solves any problems or even that you'll get full complience. THE BAD GUYS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW!!!!

Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 06:21:44 AM
 I suspect lawman is a law student.

PD for life.  Liberal lawyers get stuck there.

lawman, does this sound familiar?
..............in order to prevent misconstruction of abuse of its' powers, the further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.........
............Amendment II  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.........

I'm not sure how you can construe that as anything other than protecting the people's SELF EVIDENT right from the government.   It does not say 'the people shall be permitted to carry arms.  It says the government shall not infringe on that right.  The forefathers worded these first ten amendments very purposefully.  Anything the government has the right to give it can take away, thus having the government allow the carry of weapons would permit them also to ban the carry of weapons.  THIS IS NOT THE CASE.  The forefathers saw the right to defend ones self and home as an inalienable right and merely wanted to ensure the government would never get any ideas about abusing it's power so they removed ALL power in this aspect.

I don't care how many copies of the constitution you own, I'm sure there are a few in the oval office, READING, COMPREHENDING, AND FOLLOWING are the problems at hand.  f%$k, time to send DC back to kindergarten.

This may surprise some of my conservative friends on the board, but I support the right of individuals to own guns.  I differ from some of you in that I think some people should not be able to own them.  And I'm still not sure what the framers meant when they prefaced the Second Amendment with "A well regulated militia."  That is another can of worms and is beside the point since millions of guns are out there already.  We won't change that!

We have to get a drivers license and have proof of insurance to drive a car, yet to own a gun we don't have any such requirements.  That is a common sense issue.  I also don't want the mentally unstable to own guns.  And there are some weapons (hand grenades, machine guns, etc) that we all agree that individuals should not own.

I think a bigger problem in our country is that some people think violence is an acceptable way to solve problems, and often a first line solution.  It should be the last resort, always.  This is true whether it is gun violence, fisticuffs, or a knife fight.

Your liberal buddy,
Trumpetguy

I'm all for ensuring firearms are in safe hands, BUT they need to amend the constitution with a detailed outline.  The forefathers put the amendment process in place for a reason.


On counterpoint, I've never had to pass an NCIC check for my drivers license.   

Nah TG you didn't surprise me, and I have no issues with exclusions for felons and the mentally ill, I have never argued they should have guns. Oklahoma democrats are more conservative than many states republicans...LOL.

I have run into an issue though I have a hired hand who helps my wife and I in our lawn business part time and because he is a convicted felon under title 21, 1289 he can't be in the vehicle with me when I am carrying even if I keep the pistol in it's holster.

Lemme ask you TG since we're in the same state and you work on a college campus how do you feel about changing our states SDA to allow campus carry? I feel particularly insulted that because I work in K12 I can't even park in my office buildings parking liot. FYI if you're on OSA my screen names the same over there.

My reading skill ssuck today, gun licensing equating to car licensing.

What part of this is not clear ...", the right of the people to keep amd bear arms shall not be infringed."
Of course first we need a 14th ammendment case for this to apply.

We have a background check system for purchases of new fireams from FFL dealers. Don't push your luck for licensure. Tracking who owns guns and where they are is just a step towards attempting to control a population unlawfully Anyone can own a car, theres no license needed to owna car and operating a vehicle on your property requires no license, only when you drive it on public roads. And your talking apples and oranges anyway since driving is legally defined as a priveledge. And fortunately the Oklahoma Constittution guarantees the RKBA.

My dirtbike bought in 2007 has no title, yes it's supposed to be titled, if I operate it on public land. Since I ride membership only private ORV trails I don't have to title it.

Let's adress the full auto statement you made. It was a 11th hour backdoor additon to the firearms owners protection act that was slipped in by an unrecorded voice vote that prohibits FA weapons made after may 1986 from being owned by non government entities. It's a very slippery slope and creates an us VS. them menatllity when you establish civillian law enforcement as somehow above or superior to the citizens they are supposed to serve. I wholly disagree witih that law. As far as greandes they are DD and can be obtained with the appropriate application for and payment of federal tax. Same with supressors short barreled shotguns/rifles and pre 5/86 full auto firearms. I currently have an application in to make a short barreled rifle out of 1 of my AR15's and am preparint to Apply for a tax stamp for a supressor for that rifle. 

Doesn't anyone here think that the second amendment could have been intentionally left vague as to get everyone to agree to it?  It would have been easy to phrase it unambiguously.

Why are the founding fathers considered infallible?  Yes, they did a pretty good job, but the constitution can be improved.  Heck, they institutionalized slavery with the document, so don't tell me the constitution and the founding fathers were perfect!  Don't tell me that gun ownership is a good idea simply because some smart guys living in the 18th century thought it was a good idea in their day.

I don't think you can solve the violent crime problems in the ghettos of Detroit, slums of Baltimore or dregs of Dallas by handing out guns to the non-felons.  At the same time, crime may increase in Montana, North Dakota or Arkansas if gun ownership among non-felons were to decrease.  Different gun laws work in different areas.

Bringing us to a very widely abused amendment, the 10th.

the biggest problems are lack of communication, unwilling to compromise and people seeing everything in black and white. we'are adults, we should be able to approach this with common sense and find a common ground on it. Education is vital when talking about firearms. no matter where you are, who you are etc. proper education about firearms will go along way for everyone on both sides of this debate. the problem is that everyone must be willing to take that first step and be educated.

spc- is this the whole, "who has more rights, the state or the feds" debate you're refering to?

Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 09:07:28 AM
What part of this is not clear ...", the right of the people to keep amd bear arms shall not be infringed."
Of course first we need a 14th ammendment case for this to apply.

THAT part is crystal clear, but it is preceded by a modifying clause that isn't so clear.  Individuals by definition are not a "well regulated militia."  If the part you quoted was ALL that they intended, they would have written only that!  But, it is a flexible and amendable document, so we can make it say what we want (by passing an amendment!).

I don't support the campus carry laws as proposed.  I have seen too many students come back from Iraq or Afghanistan with PTSD (whether diagnosed officially or not).  Under the laws as proposed so far, they'd be eligible to carry (with a CCL) but I don't want to be on the same campus with them if/when they snap.  As far as staff and professors carrying, I'm OK with that if the training and background checks are good.  But again, there are some kooks out there...even among the staff and professors.

How do you feel about individual ownership of nuclear or chemical weapons -- isn't the prohibition of that a slippery slope as well?  As you might guess, I'm not buying the "slippery slope" argument, as it is generally employed to preclude any reasonable regulation.

instead of trying to create new laws to ban guns etc, why don't we work on harsher punishments and better enforcements of the current gun laws? 

Quote from: jserio on April 08, 2009, 11:11:32 AM
instead of trying to create new laws to ban guns etc, why don't we work on harsher punishments and better enforcements of the current gun laws? 

Harsher punishment has been the trend over the last 20 years, but I don't think that is the ultimate solution.  The USA's 5% of the world's total population yet 25% of the world's prison population stat suggests my intuition isn't completely misplaced.

Better enforcement means either a restriction on citizen rights (more search and seizure powers for the police), higher taxes for police and equipment, or both.  I'm all for the both option in very specific areas.  I think you'll find the law abiding citizens of the Baltimore slums will gladly trade their rights for security.  Such a trade has turned Compton around.