Mass shooting at Oregon college: 15+ dead...

Page 15 of 15 [ 219 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,677

15 Oct 2015, 7:23 am

Lukeda420 wrote:
Cyberdad
Because abolishing the individual right to own a gun is unrealistic and the majority of the U.S. population support an individual's right to bear arms. I'm only referring to people who want an outright ban on guns. From what I've seen when people call someone "anti-gun" typically they are referring to this group. That's just an opinion though


The right to bear arms is inherited from a bygone era. I'm hoping when Americans start colonies on Mars that guns are banned there at least. Would be rather foolish to accidentally blow a hole in the wall.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

15 Oct 2015, 1:26 pm

Jacoby wrote:
Dox should just write a book considering the amount of time he has taken trying to educate people on this subject.


I've tried to create universal FAQs a few times, but they've never gone anywhere, and then I found this article that says 90% of what I'd like to, by someone with even stronger gun credentials than I have:

http://monsterhunternation.com/2012/12/ ... n-control/

It's long, like 10,000 words long, and leans a bit more conservative than I'd like, but does an admirable job of hitting most of the relevant points.


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,044
Location: Seattle

15 Oct 2015, 1:44 pm

Lukeda420 wrote:
I'm only referring to people who want an outright ban on guns. From what I've seen when people call someone "anti-gun" typically they are referring to this group. That's just an opinion though.


Minor correction; we're not just talking about gun banners when we term someone anti-gun, we're referring to anyone supporting pointless and burdensome rules that they don't really understand. At best, they're misguided, at worst, they're useful idiots for the actual gun banners who run the major gun control organizations. From where I sit, the major problem is that so many of them are people with no experience with firearms who have bought into the partisan system, and so not only see no downside to gun control, as they don't own guns and have no intention of ever doing so, but actually despise people who do due to partisanship and the way we're constantly smeared in the media; like vegans supporting bans on steak.

This also explains a lot of the passion gap; gun owners like myself have to be "on" all the time because we're under constant political attack, so we spend a lot of time on the issue, fighting a low level political battle day to day, and a hot one every time there's a sensational crime using a firearm being reported on, where as most anti-gun people are only roused to action when there's something on the news. Basically, we're constantly immersed in the issue, where most of our opponents are pikers, and it shows when it comes to actual debate. It also shows in the way the handful of full time anti gun people pounce on a tragedy and try to pass their agenda as quickly as possible while people are still emotional and haven't thought things through, they know full well that their support is fleeting, while ours is constant, and that if they want to push their agenda they have to move while the bodies are still warm.

Lukeda420 wrote:
And Dox47 just let it go, we're not going to change each others minds. We have a fundamentally different of of the nature of people. So let's just agree to disagree.


Well, of course you're not going to change my mind, you haven't really brought anything to the table; why is your opinion so immutable? Like I've said before, I have extensive knowledge and experience with the subject, which is why I'm so confident in opinion on it, but what special information are you relying on to base your opinions?


_________________
Murum Aries Attigit


envirozentinel
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 16 Sep 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 15,102
Location: Keshron, Super-Zakhyria

15 Oct 2015, 2:29 pm

What, by the way, would you describe as your most compelling reason for being pro-gun?

I'm not really a side-taker and not from the US; just curious. Hunting?


_________________
Why is a trailer behind a car but ahead of a movie?


my blog:
https://sentinel63.wordpress.com/


Lukeda420
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,640
Location: Chicago suburbs.

15 Oct 2015, 2:36 pm

The reason you won't change my mind is because we have a fundamentally different view on human nature. The media paints a very simplistic views of issues and these things get parroted on facebook and other sites. There is a constant rage machine on the internet. I believe what's happening is that sensible people and the internet rage machine just happen to be talking about the same issue. I believe the people raging against some gun owners are just louder. We are disagreeing about the ratio of sensible people to the anti-gun people.

Also the mainstream media likes to push conflict as it gets more viewers and increases their profit. So they are perpetuating the binary "pro vs. anti."

I have not stated my opinions on the specifics of gun control in this thread other than I am for an individual right to own a gun. I have only stated my opinion of the views people have on the subject.

The last thing. I don't mind when politicians start talking about issues right after these events. There are issues in society that need to be addressed and sometimes the only thing that gets people to do something is a crisis or tragedy.

I actually don't think our stance on gun control is that far off. We can probably find far more agreement than disagreement, right now the national conversation is emphasizing the disagreement.

Again we're not really disagreeing about gun control. We are disagreeing about the size of the anti-gun population (using your definition of the term). That's not something that can be accurately determined so it's left up to personal opinion. It kind of like the question "are people good or evil?"

Hopefully that's clear, but that's why you won't change my opinion.



pluto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,751
Location: Paisley,Scotland UK

15 Oct 2015, 2:47 pm

I realise there are valid points on both sides of the debate,but it's interesting to see the actual wording of the Bill
Of Rights :
"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"

This could be open to interpretation :
"Well regulated " - how far do today's laws meet this requirement ?
"necessary to security of a free State" - did they mean that security of the State is a criteria that has to be
met to justify the right to possession of arms ?
"the people" - as the word Militia is capitalised,did they mean that "the people" are still considered to be bearing arms
even if those arms are actually in possession of the peoples' well regulated Militia ?


_________________
I have lost the will to be apathetic


glebel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jul 2015
Age: 57
Posts: 1,665
Location: Mountains of Southern California

16 Oct 2015, 10:35 am

pluto wrote:
I realise there are valid points on both sides of the debate,but it's interesting to see the actual wording of the Bill
Of Rights :
"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"

This could be open to interpretation :
"Well regulated " - how far do today's laws meet this requirement ?
"necessary to security of a free State" - did they mean that security of the State is a criteria that has to be
met to justify the right to possession of arms ?
"the people" - as the word Militia is capitalised,did they mean that "the people" are still considered to be bearing arms
even if those arms are actually in possession of the peoples' well regulated Militia ?

The interpreting of the Constitution is the whole problem with this country at this point in time. The Founding Fathers stated things clearly ( few of them were lawyers) and meant for the words in the Constitution to mean what they say.
You have to take the words 'militia' and 'people' at face value to get the true meaning of what they meant. The people who formed the various state militias generally used superior weapons as opposed to what standing armies used at that time ( rifles vs. smoothbore muskets). The signers of the Constitution were very aware of this fact. Your average army recruit of that era had zero familiarity with firearms, and so was given a weapon they could quickly learn to use. They wanted the American militia, who were quite experienced with guns, to be better armed as a defense against foreign powers.


_________________
When everyone is losing their heads except you, maybe you don't understand the situation.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Oct 2015, 11:58 am

pluto wrote:
I realise there are valid points on both sides of the debate,but it's interesting to see the actual wording of the Bill
Of Rights :
"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"

This could be open to interpretation :
"Well regulated " - how far do today's laws meet this requirement ?
"necessary to security of a free State" - did they mean that security of the State is a criteria that has to be
met to justify the right to possession of arms ?
"the people" - as the word Militia is capitalised,did they mean that "the people" are still considered to be bearing arms
even if those arms are actually in possession of the peoples' well regulated Militia ?


http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,985
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

16 Oct 2015, 12:15 pm

envirozentinel wrote:
What, by the way, would you describe as your most compelling reason for being pro-gun?

I'm not really a side-taker and not from the US; just curious. Hunting?


Since you didnt ask anyone by name....

If I had to select one word and one word only just off the top of my head as a reason that word would be "reality". If you need something to use to protect yourself from a deadly threat you need it NOW and a gun has far broader capability than any non-lethal alternative. Another reality is that guns can not be made to go away. Even if they completely stopped manufacturing them the existing stock in private hands would last lifetimes. I have a 1904 dated Swedish Mauser rifle that works just fine and is very accurate and deadly hundreds of yards away. They don't just wilt and rot away in a few years.

I could write more but I have other things on my plate at the time.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley