What do we have a militia clause for?

The vision of a 6-year-old with a Glock 9mm firing the weapon is quite absurd.

Quote: rxwine

You're born with life, and vocal cords for speech, but no one born with a metal gun. It's probably an invented right.

Gay Marrige would be an invented right, not "noticed" until the last 15 years or so. The right to bear arms was clearly written out in the Constitution, so it would only be "invented" with the right to free speech, freedom of religion, right not to have troops quartered in your home by force, and multiple others.

Quote: rxwine

Yup, but we also try to make it as difficult as possible for terrorist to access an airliner. Because airliners don't kill people either.

No, what we do is make it difficult for the law-abiding public to fly. If we wanted to make it difficult for terrorists we would profile travelers for search instead of this "random" thing where we search 5 year old kids traveling with a family and old ladies in wheelchairs. We would throw out lawsuits against Imans who behave like terrorists to sue USAir and put them on the no-fly list instead of apologizing for people "offending" them when the people did what we said they should do, namely report suspicious behavior.

Quote:

NRA has steadfastly been applying the opposite idea to guns. They generally resist laws that make access harder.

SO WHAT? The NAACP and others sue every entity in site to stop voter-ID laws, which is far less intrusive than what it takes to get a conceal-carry permit in even the states with the most liberal standards. In Chicago your dog can vote easier than the most upstanding person can get a gun legally. It works, though, based on the lack of gun violence in Chicago, right?

Quote:

What's different about gun than just about everything else dangerous. Point & click. Can hide em in small places. Kill at distance. They don't have much secondary usefulness like airliners or cars. Most people don't need to hunt to eat anymore.

So what? "Need" has nothing to do with it. We don't "need" the 3rd Ammendment and prohibition of quartering of troops in your home anymore as it no longer happens, why not repeal that as well?

99% of legal gun owners will hury nobody, yet you want to take away their rights. Why?

dupe please flag

National Guards pay lip service to the Governors of each of the states but it is an ultra-federalized system bearing no relationship to the local companies raised by the Founding Fathers wherein officers were voted upon and service was limited by both time and geography.

Militias do not engage in crime fighting or civil law enforcement.

Marriage licenses, literacy tests, birth certificates ... life gets complicated.

Quote: AZDuffman

99% of legal gun owners will hury nobody, yet you want to take away their rights. Why?

You know, the problem is not gun laws in Chicago. It's like the laws for illegal fireworks don't work when another state lets you buy them and transportation is easy enough.

Why aren't U.S. gun laws for accessing guns responsibly made in all states, like a responsible gun owner of a household would do it?

A responsible gun owner doesn't make the minimum efforts necessary to protect his 5 or 6 year old kid from accessing his gun. He does whatever is necessary. (Or anyone with the mental capability of a youngster, or anyone irresponsible)

If he has two teens, he doesn't automatically let them access the gun if one or both have shown themselves to be irresponsible. In general, if there is anyone in his household incapable of responsible action he has to take that into account. If, he doesn't he's a damn fool.

Some of the gun purchases in the states and under certain conditions like gun shows, are as much as "sign the papers. You are not a felon. You look okay." That's way below a minimum standard. Why not just put up a sign. "Hey Fool, buy your guns here!"

It's crimminally stupid. If stupid people would only kill each other there'd be less of a problem.

Quote: rxwine

Why aren't U.S. gun laws for accessing guns responsibly made in all states, like a responsible gun owner of a household would do it?

Well, Conststitutionally gun laws are for the states to set up, and each does what is responsible for their own needs.

But blaming the guns just goes to the point I have been trying to make. Anti-gun types cry "GUN CONTROL" 100xs louder than they blame the guy who pulled the trigger. It is as if the killer has not done anything bad, and it is the fault of the gun. Just one more case of our society refusing to hold people accountable for their own actions.

Hey, I consider it a problem gun owners address (besides waving the second ammendment around) or enough voters may address it for them at some point with a solution they like a lot less.

Keep saying there's no problem, maybe nothing will happen, if you're lucky.

Quote: AZDuffman

Well, Conststitutionally gun laws are for the states to set up, and each does what is responsible for their own needs.

But blaming the guns just goes to the point I have been trying to make. Anti-gun types cry "GUN CONTROL" 100xs louder than they blame the guy who pulled the trigger. It is as if the killer has not done anything bad, and it is the fault of the gun. Just one more case of our society refusing to hold people accountable for their own actions.

Well said, AZ. Your responses have largely kept me out of the discussion so far.

It continues to amaze me, not that someone could be anti-gun in this day and age, but that people still believe more government control is the answer to any single thing ever. I just had a several hour long conversation last night with a number of my friends on the force, which I will be addressing in "Firearms With Face" once I get home and have some time to type (~2a Eastern). I'd encourage everyone, pro, anti, or other, to check it out.

This gun deal is like a man with a spear. The Anti's would like the government to take guns away in an attempt to "dull the spear". In reality, you'd barely touch the spear while taking the defense of all the citizens on the receiving end of said spear. If, hypothetically, the government could rid our nation of guns, you'd still have a man with a stick wishing to do harm. Get rid of the stick, and you'd still have a man wishing to do harm. Regardless of how many guns you outlaw, how many sticks you eradicate, how many fertilizers you ban, or how many chemicals you discontinue, the Man of Harm will do his harm.

No matter what the problem, the solution lies in the very begining of the problem, not the end result. The government, as well as most people, are either unwilling or unable to think this deeply, or be bothered to try such a difficult solution. And it is a very difficult solution. But changing the mindset of the people, reinstilling values like personal responsibility, honor, and general goodwill of people, is the only true solution to the problem.

Until society attemps this radical change, and until the efforts have an effect on what we see in our day to day, the crazies are gonna crazy. And as long as they continue to do so, Gaston Glock and I are, at the very least, going to ensure it doesn't go down within my personal space.

Where is the least government control? Somalia? All now and future states of war zones?

Yes, there is relative peace in N. Korea as far as gun violence. But because one extreme isn't great doesn't mean you have to go all the way to the other extreme and impose govenrment controls on everything. No one cares how many beans you eat until you start farting on the bus. They still won't impose controls unless clubs of obnoxious bean eating bus riders start assaulting passengers with gas. There's plenty of things government doesn't need to do anything about and won't.

How do you propose to change people's values without imposing them? EVeryone from wacky cults to the Coca-Cola company try to influence values. Don't see why anyone will buy what you're selling in any greater numbers than they ever have.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, what we do is make it difficult for the law-abiding public to fly. If we wanted to make it difficult for terrorists we would profile travelers for search instead of this "random" thing where we search 5 year old kids traveling with a family and old ladies in wheelchairs. We would throw out lawsuits against Imans who behave like terrorists to sue USAir and put them on the no-fly list instead of apologizing for people "offending" them when the people did what we said they should do, namely report suspicious behavior.

How many U.S. commerical airliners have been hijacked since 9/11? Answer. 0.

But if you want to blame someone, blame Bush. : ) (he was the dude in charge of starting all that)