Gun Control

[mattb23]

This is an issue on which I admittedly don't know very much--I know virtually nothing about guns themsleves and, until fairly recently, had never lived in a community in which gun ownership is prevalant and in which hunting is often the sport of choice.

I think there's little doubt that the 2nd Amendment is pretty straightforward and that guns are deeply ingrained in American culture--so it's really only a matter of the degree to which gun ownership can be restricted/regulated.

I ask this is all seriousness--because I really would like to hear a well-defended support of the opposing position--how is it that anyone is truly opposed to a ban on the semiautomatic weapons which appear to have been designed to function solely as assaslt weapons? Taking a quick (and admittedly uninformed) perusal of the recently expired ban on assault weapons, it appears that the law banned only 19 specific semiaumotaic weapons (as well as copies and duplicates) designed with multiple assault features; made exceptions for law enforcement;  specifically protected 670 hunting rifles; and inherently protected other hunting rifles not specifically named. Now, again, I'm not a gun guy--so those formerly banned weapons may well have some uses that I'm not aware of. And I'm not certain that such a ban necessarily jibes with the 2nd amendmen (though I expect that upon an examination by those much more learned then I am, the ban could probably find some basis in the constitution)

But that being said, I still don't see where the opposition comes from? Why would anyone want these types of guns out on the street? I'll admit that I could see rational people having a slipperly slope concern, i.e. once you start banning some, it's only a matter of time. I just feel like public policy is always a balancing act, and balancing the right to bear arms with the right of an individual not to be murdered via a weapon specifically designed to kill doesn't seem to me like such a difficult concept.

I'm also not certain how there could be true opposition to background checks, cooling off periods, and legislation to prevent unlicensed dealers from trading guns at gun shows without background checks? I can understand general privacy concerns about background checks, but the fact of the matter is that they're done routintely as a prerequisite in a huge number of areas. If you want to buy and own a gun legitimately and for legitimate means, I don't see the harm emanating from a check on any potential criminal history. Same with the cooling off period. I mean, if you want to own a gun to hunt, or just to keep it in the home for self-protection, is it really that huge an issue to wait a few days? I mean, unless you're expecting to either race out and committ a violent crime, or are imminently expecting to be attacked/assaulted (in which case you could probably go ahead and call the police), is it really too much to ask to put the hunting trip off for a few days?

I'm asking this stuff in all seriousness, because I've never really known or been around guns, and hence don't claim to have any reasoned understanding of the opposing viewpoint. I utterly reject the logic of "if you want it bad enough, you'll get it anyway, so let's not try"--but I'll willingly concede that on the whole folks no doubt have the right to bear arms. I'm just not certain what the real problem is with taking steps to ensure that the guns that are purchasd are being purchased for legitimate use.

WithJ--glad everything is ok with your family in WI!

[giffy]

Assault weapons are needed to fight the black helicopters, illuminati agents, FEMA, and Procter & Gambel.

[giffy]

Assault weapons are needed to fight the black helicopters, illuminati agents, FEMA, and Procter & Gambel.

Don't forget duck hunting.

Or todays super animals like the flying squirl and the electric eel

[sma187]

Having read the previous posts, I feel compelled to point out a glaring flaw in the argument against gun control. The argument that guns are a part of American tradition/heritage is nice and pretty, but forgets to realize what else was considered part of American tradition and heritage, slavery. Slavery WAS an american tradition until it was abolished. This followed many other countries, such as Britain, abolishing the practice, as they have recently done with guns.

While there are arguments, particularly self-defense, that create a justification for guns in civilian hands, simply arguing that its a tradition is not satisfactory to combat the dangers they present and most assuredly cause. While a good deal of guns maybe stolen, there are a significant amount purchased legally to do horrible things.

Please respond by arguing, not railing on me for curtailing "constitutional liberties." Remember that without the civil war, we would not have passed the 13, 14, 15 amendments, because the southern states would still have been in the Union.

[sma187]

If no one was actually saying that in favor of guns, then I apologize to everyone. I am still against guns, however. Anyone wants to know why, leave a note.

"Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do."
-Family Guy

ITS A JOKE PEOPLE

[giffy]

If no one was actually saying that in favor of guns, then I apologize to everyone. I am still against guns, however. Anyone wants to know why, leave a note.

"Guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do."
-Family Guy

ITS A JOKE PEOPLE

We had a whole thread on family guy quotes a while back. search for it if you want a good laugh.