Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

1 - 20 of 86 Posts

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,248 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Here's another example of media bias against guns and gun ownership. Today at AJC.com there is a news story about a murder-suicide. It happened to involve a gun. Okay, that's news and they can legitimately point that out. But then they throw in a couple of quotes from an anti-gun group in Washington DC, and the article talks about how men usually kill people with guns. So far, I'm disappointed, but it's not really showing bias, and it's not patently unfair. THEN.....

Then they go over the last several murder-suicide incidents in the Atlanta area lately, and in each case where a firearm was used, they specifically mention that. But in what is probably the most famous case, involving that professional wrestler who STRANGLED his wife, SMOTHERED his child, and then HANGED himself, the manner of death is not mentioned. The article only says he "killed" his family, then himself.

So if guns are used in a crime, mention guns, and talk about guns. If a tragic crime occurs without the use of guns, gloss over this fact and hope nobody notices. You wouldn't want anybody to think that there might still be murder-suicides after guns are banned, would you ?

Sorry there's no link. I don't know how to do that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Write a letter to the editor asking for equal time. Then write an essay about how killing has been around since the first men who walked the Earth. Guns just happen to be the most effective tool, and that it is not the tool that should be demonized, rather the action.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,248 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Guns as Tools

Ramm, guns are just tools. But sometimes they allow a criminal or crazy to cause a lot more damage then he could cause without a gun. And sometimes circumstances are such that a criminal with a certain kind of gun, say a semi-auto with a 30-round magazine, can cause a lot more damage than a criminal with a 5-round pump action weapon.

But I say when it comes to nearly all domestic violence murder-suicides, the victims are basically helpless and could just have easily been killed with a blunt instrument, an edged instrument, or strangled with a rope or cord. Therefore even if the killer chose a gun, that choice did not cause their deaths. They'd be just as dead anyway, without the gun.

Now the sniper shooting 100 yards down the street from inside his house... or the drive-by gangsters who spray 10 rounds into the crowd of teenagers.... those people are doing the kind of crime that cannot effectively be carried out without a firearm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
gunsmoker said:
Ramm, guns cars are just tools. But sometimes they allow a criminal or crazy to cause a lot more damage then he could cause without a gun car. And sometimes circumstances are such that a criminal with a certain kind of gun car, say a semi-auto SUV with a 30-round magazine hemi, can cause a lot more damage than a criminal with a 5-round pump action weapon Vespa.
So is the answer to only use revolvers? Ban all semi-auto guns and have everyone only have revolvers?

[URL=http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2818&highlight=5shot said:
gunsmoker[/URL]] In an ideal world, I think people should have to get a license to buy or own a gun made for killing. And a mental health evaluation would be part of the process of getting that license. The only reason I don't support such a law now is that the bleeding heart liberals who dominate the psychology world would likely declare most hard-line God-fearing conservative Republicans to be mentally ill. Even if they knew it weren't true, they'd say we were just to disarm us, because it would be within their power to do so.

...

(That being said, I think our society would be the safest if we could somehow make all semi-autos disappear from the face of the Earth and then encourage civilians to carry 5-shot revolvers. That way, a bad guy who wants to commit a massacre would have no more than 10 shots immediately available to him (one gun in each hand), but he'd be facing the prospect of being shot at by dozens of people, each with 5 rounds to send his way. He might score a couple kills before being turned into Swiss cheese, but he couldn't do the kind of crime that really makes headlines across the country, or the world, for more than a week.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,460 Posts
Rammstein said:
gunsmoker said:
Ramm, guns cars are just tools. But sometimes they allow a criminal or crazy to cause a lot more damage then he could cause without a gun car. And sometimes circumstances are such that a criminal with a certain kind of gun car, say a semi-auto SUV with a 30-round magazine hemi, can cause a lot more damage than a criminal with a 5-round pump action weapon Vespa.
I try to avoid any comparisons of firearms and automobiles. Especially since I am against government registration and/or titleship of firearms.

Even though the laws on who can drive are more relaxed than who can own or carry a firearm, the opposite is true regarding government knowledge of ownership and operation. The government knows who ownes what car (to a certain vehicle age) and they know if you are licensed to drive a car and if the car you are driving is registered to be driven.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,248 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
No and Yes

No, there is no legitimate comparison between cars and guns. Big cars may be slightly more dangerous to others in a crash, but that's nothing like the huge difference in firepower between a typical sporting rifle (5-shot .30-06 bolt action) and a typical assault rifle (pick your favorite, with a 20 or 30-round mag, or even a 75-round drum).

To the extent that commercial trucks are more dangerous to the motoring public than regular passenger cars, we already require a special license for those. It's called a CDL. It doesn't currently require a mental health exam to get one, but only because it's very rare for a trucker to go nuts and ram things with his vehicle. It's a lot more common for people to go nuts or to commit horrific crimes with paramilitary / parapolice firearms. And due to concerns about terrorists using trucks laden with hazardous materials as weapons, now CDL drivers with HazMat endorsements on their licenses do have to have a criminal background check and immigration status check, I hear.

So I think it's a lot more legitimate to treat a Thompson Contender differently from a M11/9mm. They're further apart in deadliness than a Mazda Miata is from a Cadillac Escalade.

WOULD WE BE BETTER OFF WITH 5-SHOT REVOLVERS? Yep. I didn't say we'd be freeer, or have more liberty, but we'd be safer. It's a combination of arming more people with a simple, easy-to-use and reliable weapon, but limiting the ammo capacity. RESULT: Any one individual isn't that "deadly" by himself, but the real deadliness comes from numbers. And good guys outnumber the bad guys. (Most of the time. Now if a gang of thugs corners a lone woman jogging in Central Park one evening.... she's in trouble. But she's only in slightly less trouble if she has whatever kind of gun she wants with her (say she chooses a 9mm with a 15-round magazine) and the bad guys have whatever guns they want with them (similar high-capacity semis, with a few mouseguns and snubbie revolvers thrown in).

That's how it worked in the Colonial era. If one man went nuts with a single shot blackpowder pistol, he could not do all that much damage. Even if he had one gun in each hand and two extra guns stuffed in his belt, that's just 4 shots. If there were armed people around him, he could only get off 4 shots before being taken down. THAT is how things were when the 2nd Amendment was written.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,226 Posts
Sorry gunsmoker. If I buy into your arguement then I fall right into the hands of many anti-second amendment rights activists. I know a law professor who uses that very same arguement regarding the second amendment. He is avidly anti-second amendment, although he is brilliant enough to know that an honest reading of framers' intent shows that it was intended to be an individual right and not a collective one. As such, his method of limiting this right is to point out exactly what you have done, that during the period of time this natural right was enshrined in the constitution firearms owners had limited firepower, ergo it is perfectly fine to legislate the ownership of firearms up to that level of firepower citizens had during the writing of the Bill of Rights.

He's brilliant, but he is wrong.

Our constitution is a living document. Evidences of its adaptability are found in how we now interpret the first amendment's freedom of speech. During the time the first amendment was written, the freedom of speech clause was established to guarantee political speech only. Never was this right extrapolated to the extent that it is today. Over the course of our national history it has been expanded to incorporate other speech and even expression, and while I personally find some of the protected speech to be distastefull, I laud the fact that additional rights of expression are now covered as a guaranteed right. More rights and expansion of existing rights is always a good thing. People are naturally meant to be free.

Now if we bought into your arguement limiting the second amendment to small arms with limited firing capacity, what is the difference between that stance and the stance of my law professor? At what point on that slippery slope do we say, "far enough"?

I will agree with anyone who states that fully automatic firearms should be regulated. There was never an intention by the founders for every man to own his own personal cannon. But if you read the founders statements, they were definitely of the opinion that every man should be armed with the small arms technology of the day. As a matter of fact, a collective right's scholar, whose name escapes me now (although I will find it for you if you like) came to the conclusion from his research that unfortunately for him and the other anti-individual rights crowd, the second amendment as originally intended is an individual right. Additionally, he came to the conclusion that if the second amendment was as liberally interpreted as the first amendment has come to be, not only would it definitively be considered an individual right, but could even be construed as requiring every male citizen to be armed.

Now, if you would make an arguement for the requirement of some form of formal gun training before being allowed to carry a firearm (such as a NRA safety school, military training, police academy, or the like) then I could potentially support that stance .... that is as long as the lack of said training did not inhibit the individual from possessing a firearm in their place of business, vehicle or home. I should be clear though, that this would still be in direct violation of the second amendment as originally written, but could be construed a limitation on that right such as the limitation to yell "fire" in a crowded theater is on the first amendment.

But to advocate a limitation on the firepower or capacity of a personal firearm? That, I believe, is both a dangerous position to take in regards to the second amendment, and is not founded in constitutionality either.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,926 Posts
Thorsen said:
. . . ergo it is perfectly fine to legislate the ownership of firearms up to that level of firepower citizens had during the writing of the Bill of Rights.
The same firepower as the military. Small arms, cannon, etc. I do not see what is wrong with the law professor's argument.

:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,226 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Thorsen said:
. . . ergo it is perfectly fine to legislate the ownership of firearms up to that level of firepower citizens had during the writing of the Bill of Rights.
The same firepower as the military. Small arms, cannon, etc. I do not see what is wrong with the law professor's argument.

:D
I may not have been clear Malum. This professor believes that current firearm technology possessed by individuals should be limited to that held by them during the writing of the second amendment. His stance is that since small arms were relatively ineffectual individually then the same standard should be applied today to the second amendment.

As to canons and such, the military hardware of the day, I would invite you to point out to me in any of the founders' writings where the second amendment was intended to include such military hardware. As far as I know it isn't there. The only thing referenced is the ownership of small arms of the day.

Although I would like to own my own Vulcan or Bofur :)

Feeding that thing would get expensive though.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,926 Posts
Thorsen said:
As to canons and such, the military hardware of the day, I would invite you to point out to me in any of the founders' writings where the second amendment was intended to include such military hardware. As far as I know it isn't there. The only thing referenced is the ownership of small arms of the day.
Well, rather than spending the time myself, I will ask that YOU do it. Please purchase and read this and then report back. You will find your desired references to cannon and much more.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
68,926 Posts
I make the same recommendation to everybody here viewing this site. Your education on this issue is sorely lacking without having read it!

:righton:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,226 Posts
Malum Prohibitum said:
Thorsen said:
As to canons and such, the military hardware of the day, I would invite you to point out to me in any of the founders' writings where the second amendment was intended to include such military hardware. As far as I know it isn't there. The only thing referenced is the ownership of small arms of the day.
Well, rather than spending the time myself, I will ask that YOU do it. Please purchase and read this and then report back. You will find your desired references to cannon and much more.
I'll be more than happy to take a look at that book Malum. I'm always looking to educate myself on the subject.

I will in the meantime table my arguement with this last bit of information. As I am sure you already know, our founders based their beliefs and the constitution itself on the natural law philosophy of John Locke. Following that standard of philosophy, any weapon you use that can aid you in your self-defense should be allowable as it is only naturally right that you can protect yourself from those that intend you harm. At the same time, other innocents around you have a natural right to their self-preservation as well. That is why most military ordinance is heavily regulated and is not appropriate for self-defense.

Would you want your neighbor to have the right to own a Vulcan cannon and to be able to use said weapon for his or her personal self-defense? Absolutely not! The use of that weapon would endanger your life and the lives of your family and neighbors. The same thing with other items of strictly military nature, to include someone blasting away at an intruder with a fully automatic AK-47 or M-16. It is simply not discriminatory enough and has a greater potential of harming innocents.

So while I will definitely read what you have linked me to, I think the intent of the framers to enshrine the rights of American citizens to own firearms for self-protection does not extend to the military ordinance of today. The use of such ordinance simply has too great of a potential to negatively impact the natural rights of those in the vicinity of the user.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,139 Posts
The right and the means are quite different. At the time of our nation's founding, a well-off citizen could certainly have acquired a cannon of his own, or commissioned one to be built. The fact that it is costly and hard to maneuver has nothing to do with the right. In fact, private companies can and do own plenty of ships. They could have, and still do, outfit them with weapons. Should I be able to afford an aircraft carrier, I should have the right to have one. I have a right to publish my work, but not on a government-provided printing press. I have a right to be secure in my home, papers, and effects, but not to have the government provide them. It does indeed take some means to effectively exercise rights.
 
1 - 20 of 86 Posts
Top