Do you support gun control? - Page 10

expatman · 01-07-2012, 02:56

Strictly speaking, YES. If you want to curtail that then there needs to be an amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, adressing the 2A.

***TheJ*** · 01-07-2012, 06:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glockbuster

So let me ask you where you guys stand on this. If the 2nd is absolutely non negotiable, then you have a "right" to keep and bear arms wherever you want ? does this include airline flights ? you think you have a right to get on board a flight because the 2nd gives you that right ? no regulation whatsoever ?

just asking.

Basically yes but IMHO private property is different. If the airlines want to exclude firearms they should be free to just like any other private business. There doesn't need to be laws concerning it though.

What is so terrible about legally armed citizens on an airplane? If there were armed citizens on those planes in September 2001, perhaps things would have turn out very differently.

Glockbuster · 01-07-2012, 08:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheJ

Basically yes but IMHO private property is different. If the airlines want to exclude firearms they should be free to just like any other private business. There doesn't need to be laws concerning it though.

What is so terrible about legally armed citizens on an airplane? If there were armed citizens on those planes in September 2001, perhaps things would have turn out very differently.

What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ? Plenty of legally armed citizens have committed atrocities in public places, airplanes would not be a good place for sure.

Interesting question you pose, maybe the terrorists would have deemed it too risky contemplating a bunch of vigilantes on board, ant it would have been a deterrant force, in my book the most efficient use of firearms.

But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.

expatman · 01-07-2012, 09:18

Contrary to common belief, guns on aircraft, ie. decompression from bullet holes, is not that big of a danger. In other words, I just don't see where guns on board are any more dangerous than, say, guns on a bus, guns on a boat, etc.....

***TheJ*** · 01-07-2012, 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glockbuster

What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ? Plenty of legally armed citizens have committed atrocities in public places, airplanes would not be a good place for sure....

This is the same argument they use for making it illegal to carry in bars. Plenty of states allow it and it has not resulted in blood baths. Additionally, in places where it is legal to carry in bars, bars are free to and many do restrict it on their own. It is their right to do so on their private property. The same would logically follow for airlines. It just isn't an issue.
Additionally, if somebody want to commit mass mayhem, a law against having a firearm will not and can not prevent that. (see 9-11)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glockbuster

...
Interesting question you pose, maybe the terrorists would have deemed it too risky contemplating a bunch of vigilantes on board, ant it would have been a deterrant force, in my book the most efficient use of firearms.
...

The truth is the ONLY reason weapons are not allowed on planes is to make people feel better/safer. Further the ONLY thing accomplished by ensuring law abiding people are not armed is you make them sitting ducks for criminals to commit mass homicide (see Virginia Tech, Columbine, 9/11, etc, etc.) Gun-Free-Zone = Target-Rich-Zone. The reasons for this are not simply because criminals ignore the law and carry anyway but because the list of tools to commit harm is practically infinite, while the list of tools one can use for self defense that are as effective and efficient as firearms is very short. So the net effect of less firearms is merely a reduction in self defense capability of law abiding citizens, while having practically no negative impact on offensive capabilities of criminals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glockbuster

...
But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.

That is a sad result of many years of propaganda by (however well intentioned) anti-gun types who see the trade off of freedom for perceived safety as a positive.. and that is parroted by the lazy media and politicians looking to portray themselves as making things better (and yes often they actually believe their rhetoric).

**Jerry** · 01-07-2012, 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glockbuster

What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ? Plenty of legally armed citizens have committed atrocities in public places, airplanes would not be a good place for sure.

When I was a boy they didn’t restrict firearms on planes. No blood bath!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glockbuster

Interesting question you pose, maybe the terrorists would have deemed it too risky contemplating a bunch of vigilantes on board, ant it would have been a deterrant force, in my book the most efficient use of firearms.

Allowing pilots to arm themselves and having air marshal seems to have a put a pretty big dent in terrorist on planes. Think maybe having armed citizens on the planes would have prevented 911. I’m guessing yes but then that’s just a guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glockbuster

But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.

Which shown the ignorance of those who want them restricted. It’s been proven throughout history and over and over again from state to state… “More Guns Less Crime”.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.

***TheJ*** · 01-07-2012, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

If that doesn’t bring it into perspective nothing will.

You would think that analogy/example would give more people pause to think it through.. Unfortunately, I think cognitive dissonance prevents many from logically thinking it through.

bandmasterjf · 01-07-2012, 11:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

Seems you’re the one with lack of grasp. Liberals believe in their particular version of freedom and only when it applies to them being free to impose their will on others. A lot like your version of freedom. Your trying to turn the tables of liberalism on Constitutionalism is further proof of your liberal leanings. We believe in freedom and equality for all FREE MEN. You believe in your particular version regardless of what the Constitution states.

No, I see the reality that many people that live in our society would not be free men when the 2nd Amendment was written. There was no contention for murderers walking the streets because it didn't happen then. They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets. Those people would be locked up or dead then. They should be now, but they aren't. Things have changed. You don't see that reality for whatever reason.

bandmasterjf · 01-07-2012, 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by IhRedrider

This is your rationale on why it's ok to violate the second amendment? Do you think there were no rapist in Thomas Jefferson's time? Do you think they just forgot to address this problem?

Like I said before. Just because the justice system is broken (let's convicted murderers free), gives NO ONE the right to violate the constitution by violating anyone's RIGHTS.

Like I said and your reading comprehention obviously missed is that those people would have been put to death so the law wasn't necessary. If a rapist is dead then his ability to own a firearm isn't an issue.

They also lose the right to vote, to live where they want(can't live near a school), to freely travel (can't go to places where children congrigate). It's not all about gun rights.

***TheJ*** · 01-07-2012, 11:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandmasterjf

No, I see the reality that many people that live in our society would not be free men when the 2nd Amendment was written. There was no contention for murderers walking the streets because it didn't happen then. They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets. Those people would be locked up or dead then. They should be now, but they aren't. Things have changed. You don't see that reality for whatever reason.

So.... You think the framers were unaware that murderers and crazy people were around back then, or are you saying that just not many murders and crazy people actually existed back then because all were dealt with so swiftly? Wow.
You don't think the framers knew that the constitutional protections against self incrimination and unreasonable search and seizure would lead to, in some cases, crazy/murderers remaining free? Really? You don't think they thought of that?

**Jerry** · 01-07-2012, 12:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandmasterjf

No, I see the reality that many people that live in our society would not be free men when the 2nd Amendment was written. There was no contention for murderers walking the streets because it didn't happen then. They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets. Those people would be locked up or dead then. They should be now, but they aren't. Things have changed. You don't see that reality for whatever reason.

You really need to study some history because what you’ve just posted screams of ignorance. Do you honestly believe that “every” violent person was behind bars when the Bill of Rights was put to parchment?

“No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before.
-- Colin Greenwood, in the study "Firearms Control", 1972”

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." William Pitt, 1783

1gewehr · 01-07-2012, 16:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glockbuster

What if the airlines don't want to restrict firearms on their own accord, would it be safe to have a flock of people with firearms on board ?

But still you will always have the fact that on majority public opinion mind, guns are just too dangerous to have around unregulated and without certain restrictions and education--legal, operational and others.

Before 1968, no US airliner had ever been successfully hijacked. (There were several unsuccessful attempts.) There were NO regulations against carrying on aircraft until 1968. In fact, pilots were encouraged to go armed as many airliners carried US Mail.

In 1968, Congress in it's wisdom decided to ban guns on commercial airliners. In 1969 eight airliners were hijacked to Cuba. Airline hijacking was a significant problem throughout the 70's and '80's.

In the 1950's, my grandfather went on a safari in Southern Rhodesia. The airline ticket agent suggested that he should hand-carry his guns on board the plane and put them in the overhead compartment because they were valuable. He flew from NY-Brussels, Brussels-Leopoldville, Leopoldville-Salisbury. Nobody ever questioned his carrying firearms on board a plane. That was two rifles, a shotgun, and a 1911 .45 in his briefcase.

Dukedomone · 01-07-2012, 22:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1gewehr

The examples I gave (airports and roads) are both 'rival' and 'excludable'. And there are motives for the private sector to build and maintain them. In fact, historically the private sector has done a much better job of that than government has. All early airports were privately owned and operated. Most roads before 1920 were also privately-owned and maintained.
But this is a discussion for another thread.

Agreed. You beat me to it. Off topic, but great myth busting. You also have to remember that the government spending crowds out private investment. This is another reason you see less private roads. Private roads would be much better than government roads [end of off topic rant].

IhRedrider · 01-09-2012, 20:45

bandmaster

Why do you continue to attack my reading comprehension? Is it due to the fact that YOU cannot follow a logical discussion? Since you cannot answer simple questions without spewing stupidity, I now have some more questions for you.

Quote:

If a rapist is dead then his ability to own a firearm isn't an issue.

This statement does not answer my questions. Please look at them and try again. The rapist's state of life was not in any of my questions. If you are trying to claim that in Thomas Jefferson's time all rapists were caught, tried and executed, then you are truly delusional. Or if you can back any of these implied claims up, please do, that is a challenge.

Quote:

They also lose the right to vote, to live where they want(can't live near a school), to freely travel (can't go to places where children congrigate). It's not all about gun rights.

First of all you have employed a weak diversionary tactic by making statements that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It IS all about gun rights. Read the OP and read the second amendment.
There are no amendments in the bill of RIGHTS that have anything to do with; right to vote, right to live where you want, or right to freely travel. Nice try, please stay on topic or start your own post.

Quote:

They had the forthought to write a law giving free men the right to have guns, but didn't have see a future where criminals would be set free becuase of paperwork errors and crazy people would walk the streets.

Did you think about this statement before you typed it and do you still stand by this statement?
If you do stand by this statement, please show with facts how our founding fathers were either stupid or gullible enough to believe that there would be no rapists ever to get away with their crime. The same applies to crazy people walking the streets. OR show that when the constitution was being drafted, there were no crazy people, mistakes in justice, or criminals set free.

94stang · 01-09-2012, 20:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by IhRedrider

bandmaster

Why do you continue to attack my reading comprehension? Is it due to the fact that YOU cannot follow a logical discussion? Since you cannot answer simple questions without spewing stupidity, I now have some more questions for you.

This statement does not answer my questions. Please look at them and try again. The rapist's state of life was not in any of my questions. If you are trying to claim that in Thomas Jefferson's time all rapists were caught, tried and executed, then you are truly delusional. Or if you can back any of these implied claims up, please do, that is a challenge.

First of all you have employed a weak diversionary tactic by making statements that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

It IS all about gun rights. Read the OP and read the second amendment.
There are no amendments in the bill of RIGHTS that have anything to do with; right to vote, right to live where you want, or right to freely travel. Nice try, please stay on topic or start your own post.

Did you think about this statement before you typed it and do you still stand by this statement?
If you do stand by this statement, please show with facts how our founding fathers were either stupid or gullible enough to believe that there would be no rapists ever to get away with their crime. The same applies to crazy people walking the streets. OR show that when the constitution was being drafted, there were no crazy people, mistakes in justice, or criminals set free.

I got some random email notification for this message and LOL'd... Spewing stupidity... That statement contains so much truth about certain parties.

IhRedrider · 01-16-2012, 15:54

Bandmaster,

I guess you don't want to answer my questions that I have for you. O well.

**Jerry** · 01-18-2012, 20:27

Hey bandmasterjf take a look at this http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1395693 and tell us how great NICS is and how it only “inconveniences” a few people.

runcible68 · 01-26-2012, 12:20

Sadly, just because you can own a gun, it does not follow that you SHOULD own a gun. We've all met some people with spotless criminal records who make us very nervous at the gun range. Some people are just to stupid to own a gun. Of course, what defines stupid and who would make that determination? I don't know. Sometimes I like the fact that cops in some states can say, "That guy's as dumb as a bag of rocks. No way we're letting him have a gun." Then again, that power will always be abused to restrict 2cd Amendment rights. In my fantasy world, there's be some kind of aptitude test. Never gonna happen though.

I, like most people, really want to keep guns out of the hands of the "crazies." They're the ones doing all the mass shootings. Sure, we can strengthen reporting systems, but what about people who fall through the cracks? I don't have an answer. What do you think?

YtownGlock · 01-26-2012, 12:24

Gun Control means hitting what you are shooting at

Therefore, I fully and 100% support Gun Control.

loomis22 · 02-06-2012, 22:47

Well you can be for constitutional carry....but I am a self proclaimed demorcrat and I can't stand Obama (thought he was great at first) or any other guy running for office except Ron Paul.... If you want to live your life under the constitution then Ron Paul is the only way to go IMO........and im a demorcarat just sayin........

**Jerry** · 02-07-2012, 09:21

You can’t be a Demorat and claim to support the Constitution or firearms rights. Just saying!

YtownGlock · 02-07-2012, 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

You can’t be a Demrat and claim to support the Constitution or firearms rights. Just saying!

Oh boy...

**Jerry** · 02-07-2012, 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by YtownGlock

Oh boy...

Sometimes the truth hurts.

dalegates · 02-25-2012, 07:03

This issue is much like the discussions I've heard on evolution - there's really no way to prove many of the points made. The end result is circular conversations that can never end.

Rather than reading further, I think I'll go to the range and blow up melons with my guns. Far more productive...

YtownGlock · 02-25-2012, 09:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Personally, I'm not a Democrat and I am not a Republican. I am just an American who loves his country, the constitution, the flag, and the right to own/bear arms and ammo