gun control

Just as a general comment, this thread started by talking about gun control laws in the United States. Are discussions of other countries relevant? Even if "Just Me" is right about Kenya, does it apply to us here, with a different culture and political system?

The Constitution is quite clear on this issue. Since we don't use the Constitution much anymore, I'm afraid the right to keep and bear arms is going to evaporate (hopefully not in my lifetime). Most of the sheeple of America don't know much about the Constitution, much less that there is a problem. With the number and quatlity of the replies on this subject, there may be a glimmer of hope. I have a number of casset tapes (for those of you with antique listening devices) by Mr. Bill Caruth called "Stick To Your Guns" about this subject.
Drop me a pm if you would like one and I'll make arrangements to get one to you.

The Waxhaw Flyer

bob4242 wrote:

BrianEschen wrote: A precursor to the slaughter of a country's citizens is the removal of the right of those citizens to keep and bear arms.

Hey, I'm new here, but had to jump in on this one. Brian, if a country's removal of the right to bear arms is a precursor to the slaughter of its citizens, then why haven't we seen the systematic slaughter of the citizens of Great Britain? They've had strong gun control laws for years. . . Just curious.

That's a good point. Upon further reflection, I will admit that I have overstated my case. It is merely one manifestation of the destruction of a citizen's peace and freedoms. I would argue that strong gun control laws are a precursor to increased lawlessness whether it be from a countries citizens or from its civil magistrate. A well armed populace is the last defense against tyranny. When Israel was under foreign oppression there were strict "gun control" laws. On the other hand, the rebuilding of the walls under Nehemiah was accomplished because the people remained well armed (it actually prevented violence).

There is a missionary I heard speak once who ministers in Muslim countries. The first time he went to preach to a crowd of Muslims, his escorts implored him to carry an rifle with him. He assured them that it wasn't necessary. When he started preaching to the crowd, they began assaulting him and beating him. It was with difficulty that his escorts got him safely out. Subsequently he has always carried his rifle with him in that country while preaching to Muslims and has not experienced another incident. Guns help prevent violence not create it.

Lastly, it is great to know that there will be a day when the nations will beat the swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. A day when the nations will not learn war anymore. On that day I will gladly relinquish my weapon. Until then . . . it would be pretty difficult to get it from me.

Youngstonwall wrote:
The flaw in your question is that you assume there is a line.

Stonewall,
You are correct in saying that there is not a universal ethical line that can be drawn for all instances, but a government has to legislate gun control somewhere. One of the purposes of government is to protect its citizens (and allow them to protect themselves), and I believe that it is in our best interest that they make laws banning certain types of weapons from private citizens (nuclear weapons, etc.). So I will narrow my question: Where should the line be drawn for private citizens in the United States?
Stonewall: You mentioned "whatever they can afford". I'm curious where everyone draws their own line. Personally, I haven't thought much about where I would draw my fuzzy line, but I think that citizens should be able to own powerful enough weapons that, en masse, they could repel a military coup (worst case scenario). I don't think that means grenades, but I do think it means full-auto. Just curious what everyone else thinks. . .

Brian, I too look forward to the day when our "Swords will be beaten into plowshares".

Where should the line be drawn for private citizens in the United States?

If I have an extra $45 Million lying around and want to cough it up for an F-16 I should have that right.

AIM-9 Sidewinders only cost $83,000 each and AIM-120 Slammers only a paultry $400,000 each.

And fuel will run you $1400/hour (if you buy enough to get the government discount)

If I have that kind of money I should be able to have my own personal jet fighter, and air-to-air misslies.

Yikes.

People should not be allowed to have weapons powerful enough to destroy an entire city. A gun? Well, I'm undecided about my thoughts on that, but if the government has guns, people should probably have them too. I do not trust man farther than a two year old can throw him. If a man kills a man, that's a serious offence, but it might be a risk you have to take. A man will kill a man weapons or no. But nuclear weapons? If an individual (I'm not in favour of even our government having it, but that's another matter) has a bomb powerful enough to destroy a city, that's too much risk. If they are allowed to do that, look what people could do? A person could take over the government that way. That's just as bad as the government taking over the people. The fact of the matter is, there is too much evil and sin and too much risk to chance it. I'm not in favour of any modern weapons, but certainly not in favour of citizens especially having weapons that can wipe out hundreds or thousands of lives in an instant. No matter how much they cost.

Check out this video. What a witness against gun control advocates! I like her last statement...
I wish more Americans would stand up to our corrupt legislators like this.

Given the current case being brought before the Supreme Court . . . I thought it would be a good time to pose this question . . . Would you feel safer living in a city where guns were easily available or living in a city with strict gun regulations?

I would feel much safer living in a city with strict gun regulations. The way people act...the harder it is for them to get firearms, the better.

TheWylff wrote:I would feel much safer living in a city with strict gun regulations. The way people act...the harder it is for them to get firearms, the better.

I agree. I would feel a lot safer if the criminals were the only ones who had guns (where's the sarcasm emoticon?).

Strict gun laws only serve to make it more difficult for those who obey the law to obtain guns. The criminals will just obtain them illegally.

What do you think about laws prohibiting people with criminal records from getting guns very well?

It still means an expansion of government control in my opinion. The solution for crime is stricter prosecution, not limiting the availability of guns.

I agree. I would feel a lot safer if the criminals were the only ones who had guns (where's the sarcasm emoticon?).

Strict gun laws only serve to make it more difficult for those who obey the law to obtain guns. The criminals will just obtain them illegally.

You know, that's not necessarily true. People who aren't criminals will become criminals if they have guns, whereas the harder it is for people to have guns means there is that much incentive not to get a gun and therefore people will be less likely to become criminals. Just like jail and prison. If it's a bad place to be locked away, then you are going to think twice about doing it. I would feel safer living in Canada and Great Britain ANY day of the dashed week rather than the US. When you can just walk up to a gun shop and buy a gun no matter who you are and what you've done—no restrictions, nothing asked, allowed, etc, that's just not a safe environment. Jeff, do you give your kids guns so that when they go out they can "protect" themselves? Guns don't protect anyone. They have one purpose and that is to destroy life. Which, by the way, is wrong, though sometimes necessary.

89whiteandnerdy wrote:It still means an expansion of government control in my opinion. The solution for crime is stricter prosecution, not limiting the availability of guns.

Well we disagree then. True we should punish crime better. However if someone has a criminal record it is not smart to sell him a gun. That's a crime waiting to happen. The government does have to have some control you know. Some government control is good. Government control does not equal bad all the time.