Right to Bear Arms (Split from Firearm Thread)

[Dragon]

I'm about to buy a handgun just doin a price check type thing make sure im getting as good a deal as he says it is. Paying $350 for a Taurus PT145. 10+1 and this is the pic of the model
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://lundestudio.com/wallpaper/taurus-pt145mp-left-full-hi.jpg">http://lundestudio.com/wallpaper/taurus ... ull-hi.jpg</a><!-- m -->

it shots real nice, and its got the perfect feel for what I'm looking for just seeing if the price is right

For that price range look at the Ruger P95. Gets great reviews. Personally I love the feel (although Ive never fired one)
Matt has one and I believe he did have some problems which were fixed under warranty afaik.

Should get it back within the next week or so. It had some problems, the sent me a part, had other problems, and they're now fixing the gun for free. Sucks that they've had it a while, but it's ok I have other guns to shoot. My problems seem rather rare from what I've read from other owners of the same pistol.

[CaptainHenreh]

Well, that didn't take long. The man's been president elect for a 3 days and:

Address Gun Violence in Cities:
As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.
Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

Already trying to take my guns away.

[Jeff]

Well, that didn't take long. The man's been president elect for a 3 days and:

Already trying to take my guns away.

How does being president elect qualify him for a .gov? Also, how could any ban be made permanent? Change the constitution? Won't pretty much any republican that gets elected in 4/8 years just undo the thing for us?

[CaptainHenreh]

How does being president elect qualify him for a .gov? Also, how could any ban be made permanent? Change the constitution? Won't pretty much any republican that gets elected in 4/8 years just undo the thing for us?

I think pretty much anybody in the government or any government agency or position can apply for a .GOV address from the GSA.

But as far as making the ban permanent, that's easy. Just rewrite the law and pass it without a sunset clause. Then it has to be repealed or declared unconstitutional.

I wish the bigger question was "How is a member of the Executive Branch going to legislate anything at all?" but sadly, checks and balances are pretty much eroded to nothing.

[SethM]

I really would like to know why you guys would like these kinds of weapons anyway? I'm sure they're fun to own and all, but I just don't get it. Please no citing of the 2nd amendment, I know it is there just like everyone else does.

This is not a baiting post, I really want to know because I am one of those people who has no desire to ever own a gun and stuff like this really boggles my mind.

[CaptainHenreh]

I really would like to know why you guys would like these kinds of weapons anyway? I'm sure they're fun to own and all, but I just don't get it. Please no citing of the 2nd amendment, I know it is there just like everyone else does.

This is not a baiting post, I really want to know because I am one of those people who has no desire to ever own a gun and stuff like this really boggles my mind.

I will refer you to my post on the first page of this topic, which discusses this in detail.

The question isn't "Why would you guys like to own these kinds of weapons?" it is "What right does the federal government have to tell me I can't own whatever I wish?" You don't want to own a gun. That's fine. Many people do not own guns, and that is A-OK. I wouldn't force anyone to own a gun. But just because you don't own a gun (or a particular type of gun) doesn't mean that I shouldn't be *allowed* to.

And, as I have said before, such bans do very little to nothing to prevent actual crime. People who are going to shoot other people generally have very little regard for the law. A sad fact. But if a gun ban were an effective means of eliminating gun crime, don't you think a murder ban would be an effective means of eliminating murder? Wait, we have a ban on murdering people? And it doesn't stop people who want to murder? Preposterous!

The reality is that such laws only serve to make life more difficult for the average, law abiding citizen. They are ineffectual and are a waste of time, money, and resources.

Does that answer your question? Let's try something else.

You drive an SRT-4, do you not? That automobile has features on it that exists only to increase the output of the engine to propel it beyond the posted speed limit. In the interest of public safety, all cars equipped with 2 or more of the following features will not be permitted:

Wing/Spoiler
Manual Transmission
Turbocharger
Wheels larger than 17" in diameter
Tires rated "W" or higher
Intercooler
Racing Stripes
Speedometer with a reading of more than 100 mph.

Wouldn't you feel safer having such cars out of the hands of road-going maniacs? After all, a car is to get you to work or school or to the grocery store. You don't need the above features to do that, so you shouldn't have them.

[G.Irish]

I really would like to know why you guys would like these kinds of weapons anyway? I'm sure they're fun to own and all, but I just don't get it. Please no citing of the 2nd amendment, I know it is there just like everyone else does.

This is not a baiting post, I really want to know because I am one of those people who has no desire to ever own a gun and stuff like this really boggles my mind.

I will refer you to my post on the first page of this topic, which discusses this in detail.

The question isn't "Why would you guys like to own these kinds of weapons?" it is "What right does the federal government have to tell me I can't own whatever I wish?" You don't want to own a gun. That's fine. Many people do not own guns, and that is A-OK. I wouldn't force anyone to own a gun. But just because you don't own a gun (or a particular type of gun) doesn't mean that I shouldn't be *allowed* to.

And, as I have said before, such bans do very little to nothing to prevent actual crime. People who are going to shoot other people generally have very little regard for the law. A sad fact. But if a gun ban were an effective means of eliminating gun crime, don't you think a murder ban would be an effective means of eliminating murder? Wait, we have a ban on murdering people? And it doesn't stop people who want to murder? Preposterous!

The reality is that such laws only serve to make life more difficult for the average, law abiding citizen. They are ineffectual and are a waste of time, money, and resources.

Does that answer your question? Let's try something else.

You drive an SRT-4, do you not? That automobile has features on it that exists only to increase the output of the engine to propel it beyond the posted speed limit. In the interest of public safety, all cars equipped with 2 or more of the following features will not be permitted:

Wing/Spoiler
Manual Transmission
Turbocharger
Wheels larger than 17" in diameter
Tires rated "W" or higher
Intercooler
Racing Stripes
Speedometer with a reading of more than 100 mph.

Wouldn't you feel safer having such cars out of the hands of road-going maniacs? After all, a car is to get you to work or school or to the grocery store. You don't need the above features to do that, so you shouldn't have them.

Spot on. Now I call upon all of you who disagree with the assault weapons ban to actually do something about this, rather than complaining about it. Write your congressman, write your senator, post on Obama's web site. So many times there is legislation that we disagree with but we don't do anything about it. I for one will be happy to put my 2 cents in about the assault weapons ban.

Perhaps this would be a good thread to post facts about why the assault weapons ban doesn't make sense in the first place (because it doesn't take into account lethality of a given weapon) and the statistics about what weapons are actually used in gun crime.

In the meantime I need to get my shit together and pick up my AR-15.

[Jeff]

I really do need to get an AR...I have been putting it off for so long. Its between that and a PSL

[G.Irish]

I really would like to know why you guys would like these kinds of weapons anyway? I'm sure they're fun to own and all, but I just don't get it. Please no citing of the 2nd amendment, I know it is there just like everyone else does.

This is not a baiting post, I really want to know because I am one of those people who has no desire to ever own a gun and stuff like this really boggles my mind.

For me, the times I've fired a gun were a lot of fun and I'd like to have one of my own. Long term, I don't trust the government and if shit every goes down, whether it be rioting and disorder like Katrina or the government overstepping it's boundaries I'd like to be prepared. It may seem crazy right now but I'm sure if you told a German in 1910 that something like the Third Reich would come to pass in their country they would've called you crazy too.

Being able to defend my rights as an American by force if necessary is important to me, and I suspect others. Yeah it's unlikely now but who knows what will happen in the future. I never thought that legislation that removed habeas corpus and allowed the government to spy on it's citizens and serve National Security letters would pass either.

When people join the military they take an oath that says, "I will defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic." As a citizen I believe that is part of my duty too.

[SethM]

CaptainHenreh: A very good analogy with cars, especially considering obviously everyone here is interested in them. However my car has a viable use (depending on who you ask about SRT4's, nyuk nyuk) which is to get to and from work/school/LIVING LIFE ONE 1/4 MILE AT A TIME. A gun has one viable use in current times, hunting. You do not need a handgun or an automatic weapon to hunt. My grandfather in rural Pennsylvania owns literally hundreds of guns, and not one of them is a handgun or assault weapon which would be affected by this ban. Because he hunts and practices target shooting with them.

I can also tell you right now that my family has a history of mental illness on my fathers side and I could obtain a gun right now. Should I? Absolutely not! So how can we accurately ascertain who should, and should not own a weapon capable of killing many people in a short amount of time? A rifle meant for hunting and a handgun or automatic weapon meant for maiming and killing other human beings are two very seperate things.


G.Irish: I agree, firing a gun is very fun. Again the only times I have done so were with an antique 6-shooter and with hunting rifiles meant for target practice and hunting in Pennsylvania. However you are afraid of the government collapsing and you needing a gun to defend yourself against the oncoming apocalypse? Well I am not ready to argue that one, perhaps I should replay Fallout to remember how much I love the Heavy Guns skill and Bloody Mess.

[Ginger]

However my car has a viable use (depending on who you ask about SRT4's, nyuk nyuk) which is to get to and from work/school/LIVING LIFE ONE 1/4 MILE AT A TIME. A gun has one viable use in current times, hunting. You do not need a handgun or an automatic weapon to hunt
....
A rifle meant for hunting and a handgun or automatic weapon meant for maiming and killing other human beings are two very seperate things.

Are personal and home defense not "viable" uses for the weapons that you define as not-for-hunting? I propose that they are perfectly acceptable uses, however these uses are for situations which you have either not permitted yourself to imagine possible or do not believe will ever happen to you. Which brings me to a challenge...

Can you define an assault weapon? I believe that if you approach it rationally you will find it to be a very difficult task.

I can also tell you right now that my family has a history of mental illness on my fathers side and I could obtain a gun right now. Should I? Absolutely not! So how can we accurately ascertain who should, and should not own a weapon capable of killing many people in a short amount of time?

In the absence of others' personal responsibility would you pass on my rights to a government counsel for consideration?

However you are afraid of the government collapsing and you needing a gun to defend yourself against the oncoming apocalypse?

Well, like it or not, on a long enough time line the survival rate for every government drops to zero. Dismissing that idea as radical thinking is wishful ignorance.

[Goodspeed]

I think the others are doing a good job of explaining the situation, but this right here is at the core of it....

You do not need a handgun or an automatic weapon

There is no need or want, simply right to have.

That, and it is extremely difficult to obtain an automatic assault rifle in the US legally.

[G.Irish]

CaptainHenreh: A very good analogy with cars, especially considering obviously everyone here is interested in them. However my car has a viable use (depending on who you ask about SRT4's, nyuk nyuk) which is to get to and from work/school/LIVING LIFE ONE 1/4 MILE AT A TIME. A gun has one viable use in current times, hunting. You do not need a handgun or an automatic weapon to hunt. My grandfather in rural Pennsylvania owns literally hundreds of guns, and not one of them is a handgun or assault weapon which would be affected by this ban. Because he hunts and practices target shooting with them.

You're missing the point. Technically you do not need a vehicle that can exceed the speed limit. Would you be happy with a law that bans any vehicle that can do more than 65 mph?

As for the gun's usage, the 2nd amendment has ZERO to do with hunting.

G.Irish: I agree, firing a gun is very fun. Again the only times I have done so were with an antique 6-shooter and with hunting rifiles meant for target practice and hunting in Pennsylvania. However you are afraid of the government collapsing and you needing a gun to defend yourself against the oncoming apocalypse?

Perhaps you think the founding fathers were idiots but the reason they put the 2nd amendment in there was specifically for that purpose. Even then, the problem with firearms is the people who use them.

Law-abiding citizens who properly register their guns are not the ones you need to be worrying about because 999 times out of 1000 they are not the ones committing crimes. Look at the DC gun ban. Guns were banned in the city for decades and it continued to have one of the highest murder rates in the country. When guns are banned all you're doing is preventing law-abiding citizens from having an avenue to defend themselves.

If you don't like guns, don't buy one. The chances of you getting shot by someone who lawfully purchases an AR-15 are ridiculously low. You're much more likely to get killed by someone who was exceeding the speed limit in their car...

[CaptainHenreh]

CaptainHenreh: A very good analogy with cars, especially considering obviously everyone here is interested in them. However my car has a viable use (depending on who you ask about SRT4's, nyuk nyuk) which is to get to and from work/school/LIVING LIFE ONE 1/4 MILE AT A TIME.

I mentioned that in my own post. As gerald said, you may have a viable use for your car...but it doesn't need to go over 65, does it? Speeds in excess of 65 are a violation of the law. No honest man needs more than 100 horsepower, amirite? (And cars aren't even constitutionally protected!)

A gun has one viable use in current times, hunting. You do not need a handgun or an automatic weapon to hunt. My grandfather in rural Pennsylvania owns literally hundreds of guns, and not one of them is a handgun or assault weapon which would be affected by this ban. Because he hunts and practices target shooting with them.

I see you didn't read the post I linked you to. I'll forgive you. But you really should take 10 minutes to read what I wrote and the article I linked to, Massad Ayoob's "In Defense of the Automatic Firearm".

HAD you chosen to read the post I linked you to, you would have seen that you are, in fact, very very wrong about an automatic firearm being "unnessecary" for hunting. In a sense, you are correct. We don't need automatic firearms for hunting. In fact, if you want to get nitpicky, you don't need firearms at all. A bow and arrow served our ancestors, why not today? Why not a spear? Why not a club with a piece of flint in the end. Should we restrict ourselves to ancient technology because anything else is "unnessecary"?

But I digress. The reality is that a semi-automatic firearm has a very useful purpose in hunting: The quick follow up shot. Who wants an animal to suffer? A semi auto gives you the ability to take a second shot very quickly without changing your sight picture. Not every shot is perfect, and sometimes you may just wound an animal. In the time it takes you to work a bolt, the animal may have gotten away, or at the very least spends a few extra seconds in pain. A semi auto allows you to follow up quickly with a second shot. But let's not lose sight of the fact that the second amendment doesn't protect hunting.

So how can we accurately ascertain who should, and should not own a weapon capable of killing many people in a short amount of time?

We have laws in place for exactly this circumstance. If you've a history of mental illness, your NICS check will not permit you to receive a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. If you do NOT have a history of mental illness, then you are free as an American to purchase a firearm. You can't discriminate based on the possibility of mental illness because thats, er, discrimination.

However you are afraid of the government collapsing and you needing a gun to defend yourself against the oncoming apocalypse?

Our founding fathers certainly were. They new that nothing lasts forever, and they had just gotten finished fighting a long and bloody struggle against a tyrannical government. They new exactly what they were doing when the penned the second amendment. As I said in my previous post (the one you didn't read) the second amendment demands that we band together for our own defense, and the common defense of said constitution. The only person responsible for your defense, in the end, is YOU. Katrina is the perfect example of this. A disaster like that could happen anywhere, at any time, and I don't have faith in the basic "goodness" of humanity. When the shit hits the fan, I want the ability to defend me and my family, and I won't let someone who fears a simple tool take it away from me.

I really look forward to your response. I've never had a discussion with someone on Second Amendment rights where the other person had a genuine argument against firearm possession. "You don't need it" isn't a viable argument. You don't need your freedom of religion. You don't need your freedom from unwarrented search and seizure. You don't need your right to free speech, comrade. Those things don't keep you alive. So you don't, per se, need them. Would you trade those away as easily as your right to keep and bear arms?

[CaptainHenreh]

Well, SethM is no fun, and Jack knows better than to argue with me on this subject, as he's the untenable position of knowing I'm right and wishing I was wrong.

In other gun related news:

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselections/2008/11/gun-sales-soar.html">http://timesonline.typepad.com/uselecti ... -soar.html</a><!-- m -->

Firearm sales are up since election day! The President-Elect should take careful note of this fact and keep far, far away from gun legislation. (He won't. But he oughta.)

[Apoc]

Sooo.... who wants to shoot some clays? A shotgun has been on my Christmas list for years but I doubt I'm getting one this year. Rexy, when do I get to cash in that raincheck?

[HAULN-SS]

i'm down for shooting someday. I have a clay thrower and a box of clays i have never opened. My gun's dirty right now too, so we should do it before i clean it. Someday after thanksgiving good?

[CaptainHenreh]

Sooo.... who wants to shoot some clays? A shotgun has been on my Christmas list for years but I doubt I'm getting one this year. Rexy, when do I get to cash in that raincheck?

Whenever dude, just give me a call when to meet you at Bull Run. I'm sure Matthew would be down also, since he got his new shotgun.

[Apoc]

Class is over Dec 5 so any weekend after that werks fer me.

[ScottyB]