Can we have an honest, respectful discussion about guns in America?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Bow To The Robots, Nov 7, 2017.

  1. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'd like to start a conversation here - one that might help the two sides of this ongoing debate better understand each other's positions and maybe find some common ground. Emotions run high with this topic, but the flame wars that tend to constitute debate - while entertaining - are not useful or productive. So let me get it started...

    It should be no secret that I am of the pro Second-Amendment side of the argument. I proudly display a .45ACP 1911 model handgun in my avatar. At the core of my beliefs - and those of many of my fellow travelers - is that each person must be first and foremost endowed with the right to self-preservation. Without this, all other rights about which we argue so vociferously and value so deeply are moot. Freedom of speech is meaningless when you are dead. As is freedom of religion, association, peaceable assembly, interstate commerce, and all other rights we hold dear.

    By extension, self-preservation applies not just to the self, but also to the family; then to the friend; then to the acquaintance; then to the stranger. In other words, part of living in a civilized society is not only the desire, but the obligation to help when possible, and even to risk ones own safety - as Stephen Willeford and Johnnie Langendorff did just this past Sunday in Texas.

    Enter the firearm. For centuries, men have invented better ways to kill each other. Force and brute strength were for thousands of years the currency of nation building, religious indoctrination, and generally forcing others to comply with your desires. From the stone to the hammer; from the bow to the musket; from the M1 carbine to the electrically-fired 6,000 R/M rotary cannon; and ultimately to the thermonuclear equipped ICBM, a great swath of human endeavor has been devoted toward better and more efficient killing tools. Human history has shown us he who wishes to conquer must necessarily gain the monopoly of force.

    The founders of this nation - possibly the greatest experiment in self rule the world has seen - recognized the monopoly of force and were determined to even the odds by placing a significant share of it in the hands of the common man. Now, two and a half centuries hence, there are estimated to be over 300,000,000 firearms in the hands of private citizens. I am one of them. In the interest of full disclosure, I have a few dozen of various chambers, and configurations. In the further interest of disclosure, nothing I own is capable of automatic fire. I have shot plenty of autos and must admit it is a lot of fun. I've killed one thing in my life - a deer many many years ago on my first hunting trip with my grandpa and my dad in Michigan's Upper Penninsula. I enjoyed the hunt, but realized after that it was just not for me. Over the intervening years I estimate I have put about a million holes of varying sizes in sheets of paper, and a beer can inside 300 yards in my vicinity doesn't stand a chance. I do possess a CHL in my home state, but I do not carry, not seeing the need given my personal circumstances. I have carried at times, and may again should my circumstances change. Thinking of what those men in Texas did made me think of my own shooting choices and whether or not I could fire at another human being in self-defense or in the defense of others. I'd like to say "yes," but if I'm honest, I have to say the jury is out on that one. It is my sincerest hope that I never have to find out.

    A firearm is - at its most essential function - a device that propels a projectile to a specified velocity and on a given vector. The former is selected by the manufacturer, while the latter is selected by the user. A gun can be used for a variety of purposes: to feed the hungry; to build a nation; to liberate the oppressed; to stop a crime in progress; to equalize force between unequal parties. It can also be used to destroy a nation; to oppress the formerly liberated; to commit a crime; and to victimize the innocent - as we saw this past weekend in Texas, and earlier in Las Vegas, Aurora, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, and many other mass shootings perpetrated by deeply disturbed individuals; along with numerous shootings that occur every day in our urban centers to rob liquor stores or settle disputes. Firearms have been used to take the lives of four U.S. presidents, and arguably America's greatest civil rights champion The Rev. Martin Luther King.

    But behind each of these acts is a human being with conscious thought and some form of reasoning ability. Behind each of these acts is a person who makes a choice to select that vector and propel the projectile at specified velocity toward the target of his or her chosing.

    It seems most folks on the pro Second Amendment side of the debate are more interested in holding accountable the individual actor rather than the tool selected by said actor. This is my position as well. It also seems that most folks on the other side of the argument are more interested in holding accountable the weapons used. This it appears is the crux of the debate.

    Though I disagree with my colleagues across the aisle, I don't disparage them. I do believe they are (mostly) sincere in their quest to disarm the public because they believe in their hearts that is what will make us safer. The flaw in that argument as I see it is that criminals - by their nature - are people who disobey the law. If you banned all guns tomorrow and told everyone they had turn to theirs in, most law abiding folks - including me - would comply. But the real cause of this problem - today and in my mythical gun-free future - are those who would not comply. Therefore, it seems to make little practical sense to remove firearms from the hands of the law-abiding. Sadly if a person is intent on doing harm, they will likely find a way. And two days ago in Texas, it did indeed take a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.

    What say you?
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017
    Bridget, Sharpie, Wehrwolfen and 2 others like this.
  2. RiseAgainst

    RiseAgainst Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    19,122
    Likes Received:
    3,191
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is no discussion to be had. It's non-negotiable.

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
     
    Bridget, Dispondent, Sharpie and 7 others like this.
  3. TheImmortal

    TheImmortal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    11,865
    Likes Received:
    2,862
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To those who are clamoring for gun control.

    List your "reasonable" (as y'all like to call them) gun control measures.

    Now, if we give you ALL of those measures. Can you GUARANTEE that when the next shooting or mass shooting comes around that you will not come clamoring for MORE gun control?

    If the answer to that question is yes then we can talk. If the answer is no then we will not compromise.
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  4. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. But let me play Devil's Advocate: Where do you draw the line? What shall not be infringed is the citizen's right to bear arms. But the authors of that statement gave us no further counsel - it is intentionally vague, I presume to allow for future developments in weapon technology. However, I don't think the founders ever envisioned a rotary cannon that can spit hot lead at 6,000 R/M. So somewhere between the flintlock rifle and the ICBM must lie the answer. Where do you think it is?
     
  5. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At the end of the day, no gun control measure will work without the will of the people to comply. Those who comply are usually not the ones we need to worry about. I don't think there is a way to stop mass killings - a person intent on doing harm will likely find a way, sadly. If he can't get a gun, he'll rent a truck from Home Depot. If he can't get a missile, he'll hijack a jetliner and kill 3,000 innocent people in ten minutes. If he can't hijack a jetliner, he'll make a bomb out of a pressure cooker and detonate it in a dense crowd.

    I suspect the best thing for responsible citizens to do is be prepared, like the two gentlemen in Teas who likely saved hundreds of lives by running TOWARD the gunshots, not AWAY.
     
    Antiduopolist, Sharpie and Robert like this.
  6. Russ103

    Russ103 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    7,595
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anything the local/state police have at their disposal is what I expect to have if I so choose to purchase. Since it is the police who will be en route should a citizen in need call. Plus we all know the saying,

    “when seconds count, the police are just minutes away”
     
    Antiduopolist and Robert like this.
  7. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about training? Do you think it is reasonable for a citizen to have to undergo training (as with a motor vehicle) to own and operate a firearm?
     
    rcfoolinca288 likes this.
  8. Medieval Man

    Medieval Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,406
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Founders also didn't envision the internet, yet the 1A remains intact despite society producing information much more rapidly and expansively than a printing press.

    Private gun ownership, or what kind of firearms people wish to own, has closely followed what local police carry.

    Back in the 1960s and 70s, revolvers were the home defense weapon of choice, as that's what the local beat cop had in his holster. Some people would also seek out a Remington Model 870 shotgun, as that was what their neighbor the cop carried in his car.

    In the 1980s and 90s, semi-auto handguns became popular. Later, Glocks became the firearm of choice as people noticed many officers carrying these on duty.

    More recently, as we see police officers wielding AR-15s, these, too, became sought after by citizens.

    There is a distinct pattern here, and this is probably how it should be; a private citizen able to arm himself in the same manner of the local 'militia.'

    I think current laws fall short though; I believe the founders wanted citizens to have the ability to be armed as well as a soldier in the field, rather than a constable. Thus, private citizens should be able to carry small arms identical to what members of the military carry.

    After all, the reason and purpose for the 2A is to crush a tyrannical government, right?
     
    Antiduopolist, Robert and Russ103 like this.
  9. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't disagree with your very reasonable position above - however, how are you defining small arms? M-16? RPGs? Mortars?
     
  10. Russ103

    Russ103 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2014
    Messages:
    7,595
    Likes Received:
    3,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    To own and keep in their home? No, not really, heavily encouraging it at gun stores and PSA’s maybe, but not legislative mandates.

    Though I fully understand how guns operate and the importance of practicing gun safety anytime you handle one, accidents will happen, as you cited, over 300 million guns in private hands, accidents are inevitable.
     
    Antiduopolist likes this.
  11. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,455
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Advancing tech is covered. Works for 1st and 4th amendment rights, why not for 2nd?

    Shall not be infringed. If you want to change that, that will require an amendment
     
    Antiduopolist likes this.
  12. Medieval Man

    Medieval Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,406
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not a squad weapon, simply the rifle that is issued to the ordinary infantryman. So yeah, and M-16 perhaps, or an AR able to fire three round bursts.

    Body armor is legal to own, as is night vision, carry vests, etc. As it should be. The only lack of what the Founders intended at this point is being limited to semi-auto fire.

    BTW, interesting OP; I haven't seen any gun-control advocates post yet, are you anticipating goodwill and a friendly debate? I wish you well in this...
     
    Antiduopolist likes this.
  13. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's a reason for this...
     
  14. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where did I say I wanted to change it? I'm asking you what it means.
     
  15. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm actually becoming more inclined toward some kind of mandatory training TBH. I think we're losing the firearms traditions you and I likely grew up with. I had the NRA rules drilled into my head as a kid - to this day I treat every gun I pick up as loaded, even after I visually clear the chamber and know beyond any doubt that it is not. I also think it is wise to become competent in basic maintenance such as cleaning, what to do in the event of a misfire, and how to aim and hit a target. I had to take hunter safety training when I was a kid to get a hunting license. I don't see this as an infringement on my constitutional rights.
     
    rcfoolinca288 likes this.
  16. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I pretty much agree with what you posted above. And I do hope we get some from the other side here. I don't want this to be an echo chamber. I want to be challenged and challenge back.
     
    Medieval Man likes this.
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not as a requirement for the basic exercise of the right.
     
    Antiduopolist likes this.
  18. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,360
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Can we have an honest, respectful discussion about guns in America?"

    Highly unlikely.
     
    Sallyally, Antiduopolist and garyd like this.
  19. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that is indeed where it gets a little sticky. We require people to obtain training to operate a motor vehicle - thought it is not a constitutional right. I think it's a damn good idea to require training to operate a 3,000-lb. chunk of metal capable of reaching triple-digit speeds. Practically speaking, I think we must acknowledge the potential for harm to others resulting from the misuse or mishandling of firearms - intentional or not.
     
    Wehrwolfen likes this.
  20. Jestsayin

    Jestsayin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2016
    Messages:
    16,798
    Likes Received:
    17,571
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is simple. You commit any crime with a firearm, mandatory ten years then your sentence is added to your time. Personally I would contract with Brazil prisons for these ne'er-do-wells but that is just me.
     
    Wehrwolfen likes this.
  21. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    However...
    Such a requirement for the basic exercise of the right to keep and bear arms violates the constitution in exactly the same way a similar education/training requirement laid upon the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to an abortion, the right to...
     
  22. Greataxe

    Greataxe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    Messages:
    9,400
    Likes Received:
    1,348
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Look at Mexico, look at Syria. We are becoming more and more like these two nations every day. Both have very strict gun control laws. Look at what happened in Syria right after the gun laws took effect----ISIS.

    On November 3, 2013, before the Islamic New Year, King Fahad Abdul-Issam passed the Peaceful Citizens Act (Arabic: قانون المواطنين المسالمين, French: Loi de Paisibles Citoyens) which not only encouraged integration with the West, but also that of gun and weapons confiscation in order to promote a culture of peace in the new Kingdom. He also expressed the right to life as a reason.

    In a statement, Abdul-Issam said, "Everybody has the right to live in a safe and peaceful society, this is a universal right to life. Therefore, we must disarm the public to ensure this safety and promote a culture of peace, safety and well-being."
    http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Gun_Politics_in_North_Syria_(Right_to_Bear_Arms)

    Mexico only has one gun store in the entire nation ran by the police. One can only buy non-military weapons there.
    A stupid and utterly worthless endeavor.
    [​IMG]
     
  23. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    most NRA-extremists will not be able to handle a polite and civil discussion about guns.

    they will accuse folks who disagree with them of being fascists and will then threaten them with violence or call for violence against policians who support more gun regulations
     
  24. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All fair points, indeed.
     
  25. Bow To The Robots

    Bow To The Robots Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Messages:
    25,855
    Likes Received:
    5,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hitler, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Idi Amin, all of them would have not been able to inflict such great carnage on their people had their people been armed. Could you imagine armed Jews in 1939?
     

Share This Page