What the United States Supreme Court Says

[Thorne]

So... I'm not sure whether the 2nd amendment demands it or not (Debating the constitution is rather pointless in my opinion. It was vague on purpose). But either way, don't we HAVE gun control laws? I mean, in most states there is a three day waiting period, you have to have license, you can't own certain guns until certain ages, concealed carry licenses are harder to get, and you can't get one if you have a criminal record... and you can't get automatics anywho... so... what is the point of this argument?

Those who proclaim to want gun 'control' are, actually, more interested in complete prohibition (among law-abiding citizens, at least) than in actually having working, effective controls. The last thing they seem to want is intelligent people, with training and understanding, being able to defend themselves. They seem to think that allowing criminals to run rampant over unarmed people, robbing, raping and even killing them, is far preferable to the possibility that some law-abiding citizen might kill one of the criminals!

[John56{vg}]

Those who proclaim to want gun 'control' are, actually, more interested in complete prohibition (among law-abiding citizens, at least) than in actually having working, effective controls. The last thing they seem to want is intelligent people, with training and understanding, being able to defend themselves. They seem to think that allowing criminals to run rampant over unarmed people, robbing, raping and even killing them, is far preferable to the possibility that some law-abiding citizen might kill one of the criminals!

Now this is what is called a "sweeping generalization." It is not even NEAR to being true. I am a gun owner, I like guns, and I don't want the government to be the only ones with guns. But I am for the banning of assault weapons, greater controls on training and regulation of guns. Many of my friends feel the same way.

Your inflammatory statement sounds more like NRA propaganda. The NRA is the organization that goes into areas touched by gun violence and proclaim the benefits of guns to the people dealing with the tragedies of that violence. And they want us all to have grenades and RPGs and M14's so that our kids can be killed. (Now you see THAT is another sweeping generalization, just as inflammatory and wrong-headed as your statement. At least I KNOW it is wrong-headed. I am sure the NRA has many members who are level-headed and realize that we need more controls on guns.

Oh yeah, they are called Policemen. Most police organizations are FOR gun controls.

:-)

[Virulent]

Most police organizations are FOR gun controls. :-)

Why this leaves you smiling I don't know. Police obviously want to reduce the number of guns that citizens have; this makes police more necessary. One of the overriding goals of the State is to maintain a monopoly on the use of violence, so that the resistance to their initiatives is limited.

If I disagree with, for instance, the income tax, I could choose not to pay it. Soon the police will come, and attempt to use the threat of violence to compel me to accept whatever punishment the State deems fit. Obviously the police would prefer if I was unarmed; if I had a weapon designed to punch through bullet-proof vests and kevlar helmets, the police would have to question the necessity of using violence to enforce the will of the State against me.

How many police officers are willing to risk their lives to ensure that the gore-encrusted cogs of the State machine keep turning?

[Thorne]

Now this is what is called a "sweeping generalization." It is not even NEAR to being true. I am a gun owner, I like guns, and I don't want the government to be the only ones with guns. But I am for the banning of assault weapons, greater controls on training and regulation of guns. Many of my friends feel the same way.

Your inflammatory statement sounds more like NRA propaganda. The NRA is the organization that goes into areas touched by gun violence and proclaim the benefits of guns to the people dealing with the tragedies of that violence. And they want us all to have grenades and RPGs and M14's so that our kids can be killed. (Now you see THAT is another sweeping generalization, just as inflammatory and wrong-headed as your statement. At least I KNOW it is wrong-headed. I am sure the NRA has many members who are level-headed and realize that we need more controls on guns.

Oh yeah, they are called Policemen. Most police organizations are FOR gun controls.

:-)

I'll admit to it being a generalization, just as those who rant most about gun ownership in the US generalize over the attitudes here. But if you read through this thread you will see that there are quite a few people, many of them from outside the country, who are far more interested in the banishment of all guns than in proper controls.

No, I'm not a member of the NRA. In fact, I feel that the NRA is about as good for the image of gun owners as bin Laden is good for the image of Muslims. Yes, there are many members of the NRA who are rational and who do want proper controls. But the public persona of the NRA seems to me to be far more radical.

In fact, as I've stated often, I do NOT own any guns, never have and, barring a radical change in my perception of safety within my home, I don't plan on ever owning one. But I do believe that responsible people should have the right to have guns if they feel they need them. It's just that I believe there should be proper, enforceable and enforced control measures, not total prohibition.

[Ozme52]

...