Stoner's views on Firearm rights.

Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it . There is a reason crime is higher in areas that restrict gun ownership.

Rob Roy said:

Better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it . There is a reason crime is higher in areas that restrict gun ownership.

Click to expand...

Could also be that areas with high rates of gun crime make more laws against guns. Not saying it's the right approach, just saying...

What do you think about the supreme court decision on the dc gun ban? The constitution says people have the right to bear arms, but I think states should have the power to decide what kind of guns those are. As far as I know, we aren't allowed to own rocket launchers or cruise missles....even in oklahoma.

That may be true, but it is usually a single crime story which grabs the public's attention ... then the politicians and media whip it up to a lather to get gun laws passed.

Gun country is polite country.
Mr. New York is invaded in the night by Mr. Criminal, and Mr. NY ends up begging for his life.

Mr. North Carolina is invaded in the night by Mr. Criminal, and Mr. Criminal ends up begging for his life.

Quite a difference of outcome there.

abe23 said:

Could also be that areas with high rates of gun crime make more laws against guns. Not saying it's the right approach, just saying...

What do you think about the supreme court decision on the dc gun ban? The constitution says people have the right to bear arms, but I think states should have the power to decide what kind of guns those are. As far as I know, we aren't allowed to own rocket launchers or cruise missles....even in oklahoma.

Click to expand...

I live near Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws, and one of the highest murder rates. Handguns have been illegal in Chicago for more than 20 years, yet EVERY day, there is at least one shooting. Sometimes in the summer, you'll turn on the news on a monday where they recap the weekend, and there has been more than 20 shootings.
Chicago's gun ban is being heard by the supreme court next year. I think if a state's decision regarding firearms is to outright ban a particular type of firearm, that is unconstitutional. I do think that if a state wants to have a licensing system, that would be ok. Most states require you to pass a proficiency exam and carry a permit if you are going to carry a loaded gun with you in public. That makes sense to me. If a state had a licensing system for higher grade weapons, (like fully auto, 50 BMG, assault rifles, and silencers) that wouldn't offend me, as long as the permits were only denied on a basis of violent history, or not demonstrating proficiency.

CSI Stickyicky said:

I live near Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun laws, and one of the highest murder rates. Handguns have been illegal in Chicago for more than 20 years, yet EVERY day, there is at least one shooting. Sometimes in the summer, you'll turn on the news on a monday where they recap the weekend, and there has been more than 20 shootings.
Chicago's gun ban is being heard by the supreme court next year. I think if a state's decision regarding firearms is to outright ban a particular type of firearm, that is unconstitutional. I do think that if a state wants to have a licensing system, that would be ok. Most states require you to pass a proficiency exam and carry a permit if you are going to carry a loaded gun with you in public. That makes sense to me. If a state had a licensing system for higher grade weapons, (like fully auto, 50 BMG, assault rifles, and silencers) that wouldn't offend me, as long as the permits were only denied on a basis of violent history, or not demonstrating proficiency.

Click to expand...

Yea, i'm not saying gun bans solve anything, just that they tend to be a reaction to rather than the cause of gun crime...

But what I don't get about your argument is where you draw the line on what's an acceptable weapon to own. Ok, so 50 cal, fully auto and silencers would be ok with licenses. How about Artillery? Landmines? Can I own my own cruise missile if I demonstrate proficiency and don't have a violent history?

abe23 said:

Yea, i'm not saying gun bans solve anything, just that they tend to be a reaction to rather than the cause of gun crime...

But what I don't get about your argument is where you draw the line on what's an acceptable weapon to own. Ok, so 50 cal, fully auto and silencers would be ok with licenses. How about Artillery? Landmines? Can I own my own cruise missile if I demonstrate proficiency and don't have a violent history?

Click to expand...

You can have an M1 Abrams tank in your garage for all I care as long as you don't aim it at me.

Most people disagree with that sentiment which is why the Gun Control Act of 1968 severely restricted the sale and possession of many weapons under the 'sporting purposes' clause.

Which means that while automatic weapons are technically legal and available for sale, the permitting and registration requirements are so restrictive that most gun enthusiasts simply cannot afford them.

By the way, this same act made criminals out of those of us who use cannabis illegally and possess firearms.

If you read the history of US Supreme Court cases involving the second amendment, there are only 2 reasons why someone would need a firearm, one is for militia, or common defense, one is for personal defense, (the first case to uphold personal defense wasnt until 2008 ) when it comes to common defense, early cases state that any weapon that is of regular military hardware is within your right as a citizen to have, and i do believe that includes automatic weapons, 50 BMG, and assault rifles. cruise missiles are not issued to any one person, and i think would be excluded.

the reality is that this day and age in this country. usa. when someone crawls through your window and robs you....when you blast him and he survives, he sues you for shooting him and wins a settlement....thats why you use large caliber. theres no one left around to sue you

jordisgarden said:

the reality is that this day and age in this country. usa. when someone crawls through your window and robs you....when you blast him and he survives, he sues you for shooting him and wins a settlement....thats why you use large caliber. theres no one left around to sue you

Click to expand...

Not in my state. The Castle Doctrine states that anyone invading your home illegally means to harm you. Deadly force is not just acceptable, it's recommended.

And lawsuits are routinely thrown own when the invader is not DRT* then tries to seek restitution in the courts. The Castle Doctrine immunizes the resident protecting himself in his home.

*Dead Right There

A lot of states hace a castle doctrine, and i think they all will eventually, but not all do. I know my state, Illinois, doesn't have one.

Johnnyorganic said:

You can have an M1 Abrams tank in your garage for all I care as long as you don't aim it at me.

Click to expand...

Ok, but what if I do decide to aim it at you.....

Are you gonna hop into your apache helicopter? Mine your front lawn? Or should police cruisers be outfitted with anti-tank missiles instead of shotguns?

I'm sorry but I don't really want my neighborhood to look like a bad day in Baghdad even if that means infringing on your right to own heavy weaponry. I think I hate freedom....

abe23 said:

Ok, but what if I do decide to aim it at you.....

Are you gonna hop into your apache helicopter? Mine your front lawn? Or should police cruisers be outfitted with anti-tank missiles instead of shotguns?

I'm sorry but I don't really want my neighborhood to look like a bad day in Baghdad even if that means infringing on your right to own heavy weaponry. I think I hate freedom....

Click to expand...

It depends on why you are aiming it at me.

If you threaten me with your tank and I am doing nothing but tending my garden, you are breaking the law.

You could point a .22 caliber at me as well. Should they be banned from personal possession, too?

You say Bagdad, I say Zurich.

Were we not given the right to bare arms to protect our homes & family and if need be take our government over if they get to powerful and start stripping our rights?

Yup.

......

Johnnyorganic said:

It depends on why you are aiming it at me.

If you threaten me with your tank and I am doing nothing but tending my garden, you are breaking the law.

You could point a .22 caliber at me as well. Should they be banned from personal possession, too?

You say Bagdad, I say Zurich.

Click to expand...

Ok, so I've got my tank and I'm breaking the law....what are you gonna do about it? I've got a fucking tank! Bring it!

Point is, someone with a .22 can protect their life and property just fine but if they do decide to go on a rampage, they're fairly easily subdued. Again, the only thing that would balance that out is if everyone had a tank and I just don't want to live in a warzone...

The swiss have assault rifles and pistols and they know how to use them because they're all conscripted into the military. Trust me though, they don't take their fighter planes and tanks home with them.

Woodstock.Hippie said:

Which other legal ways can you protect your property during a zombie insurgence?

Click to expand...

Oh come on...that's a little far fetched don't you think? I mean, sure, bangladeshi UN peacekeepers might be planning to parachute into your backyard and force you to pay for their climate change hoax and it's your duty to be prepared for that, but zombies? You watch way too many movies...

abe23 said:

Ok, so I've got my tank and I'm breaking the law....what are you gonna do about it? I've got a fucking tank! Bring it!

Point is, someone with a .22 can protect their life and property just fine but if they do decide to go on a rampage, they're fairly easily subdued. Again, the only thing that would balance that out is if everyone had a tank and I just don't want to live in a warzone...

The swiss have assault rifles and pistols and they know how to use them because they're all conscripted into the military. Trust me though, they don't take their fighter planes and tanks home with them.

Click to expand...

Just because you have superior firepower does not automatically mean you will prevail. Tanks are good for distance fighting, but are pretty vulnerable up close. A tank trap can immobilize a tank. A tank can be taken out with a molotov cocktail, properly placed. Plus a tank requires a crew. One man in a tank is pretty worthless in a tactical sense.

The cops run around in tactical body armor now. Police forces have armored personnel carriers and automatic weapons. Citizens have small arms. The disparity exists now. Should not the cops be on the same level as Joe Citizen?

If everyone who could afford to purchase one, chose to own a tank I would not have a problem with it. Tanks in the garages of law abiding citizens are no threat. No more than semi-automatic Assault rifles in the homes of law abiding citizens are no threat. Your war zone analogy fails.

If a nutcase goes on a rampage the law deals with him.

Pay no attention to the hippy. She does not realize Woodstock was forty fucking years ago. She's a friendly troll, but she is annoying.

<Obi Wan voice> Use the ignore feature, Luke.