Kansas town passes law requiring homes to own guns and ammunition

[fireguy_31]

This is friggen crazy...

Gun laws are not to be equated with reducing crime, inevitably a dissection of such a proposed "cause and effect" will be inconclusive. Gun laws should be equated with safety. If someone wants to own a gun I say go ahead BUT, you better know how to own a gun... The only way to do that is a comprehensive screening/training program. What gun nuts interprit this measure as is "gun control" by bleeding heart liberals.. Not so.. It's about safe handling, proper storage and keeping guns out of the hands of people who, for reasons of sanity and/or past criminal behaviour, do not deserve to own a gun - for SAFETY reasons..

Don't forget that government provides for our collective safety, among other things, and government has a right to govern - for everyones sake.

 

[fireguy_31]

Making it mandatory for every house-hold to own a gun is irresponsible and misinformed governance.

 

[Persol]

I feel that screening is 'gun control'. It's controlling who has guns It is also a good idea. Some people should just not have guns.

Forcing every house to do this is just silly. I can just picture one of my old wheelchair bound neighbors with a shotgun in hand yelling at the local kids "Get off my lawn"

 

[fireguy_31]

I feel that screening is 'gun control'. It's controlling who has guns

True, it is. Although the term "gun control" has a stigma, maybe that's what i was trying to say...

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Persol
I feel that screening is 'gun control'. It's controlling who has guns It is also a good idea. Some people should just not have guns.

I have no problem with "screening" if, by "screening", you mean background checks to prevent psychos and criminals from purchasing firearms.

I don't approve of "screening", if, by "screening", you mean some political litmus test or some bureaucrat trying to determine of the would-be gun buyer "needs" the gun he or she wants to buy.

 

[coolsoldier]

Originally posted by Galt
I have no problem with "screening" if, by "screening", you mean background checks to prevent psychos and criminals from purchasing firearms.

I don't approve of "screening", if, by "screening", you mean some political litmus test or some bureaucrat trying to determine of the would-be gun buyer "needs" the gun he or she wants to buy.

That's just different levels of the same thing -- preventing people from owning guns. And as far as the second amendment is concerned, if bearing arms is a right, the government shouldn't be able to keep them from anybody (that is, after all, what a right is). I am of the opinion that anybody should be able to have a gun, but not any gun. Assault rifles in the hands of the average civilian is just a bad idea.

And there is a big difference between the government telling you what you can do and what you must do. The former is libertarian. The latter is authoritarian.

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by coolsoldier
That's just different levels of the same thing -- preventing people from owning guns.

They are different as far as the motivation for those policies. It's one thing to keep someone with a history of violent/criminal behavior from buying a gun. It's a whole different thing to tell a law-abiding citizen that he or she can't own a gun because you don't like the way the gun looks or shoots or because you don't think they need it.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
And as far as the second amendment is concerned, if bearing arms is a right, the government shouldn't be able to keep them from anybody (that is, after all, what a right is).

That's not entirely true. The government shouldn't be able to keep people from owning firearms without a legitimate reason. A history of criminal behavior is a legitimate reason. Not liking semi-automatic rifles with pistol grips is not.

Originally posted by coolsoldier
Assault rifles in the hands of the average civilian is just a bad idea.

Why?

Originally posted by coolsoldier
And there is a big difference between the government telling you what you can do and what you must do. The former is libertarian. The latter is authoritarian.

Wrong. Simply telling people what they can do is not Libertarianism. What the people can do is what determines whether or not the government it is Libertarian in nature.

 

[Persol]

Like all other rights, this one has limits. We all SEEM to agree on this. I think we all agree that filtering of who gets it (based on past history, mental state being arguable) is a good idea. I also think that we all agree that based on the above filtering, some people may be allowed only small arms. It think we also agree that you should not need any reason to own a gun (as far as the government is concerned).

Summary:
Filtering of who can guns, based on past history, possibly mental state, not politics/motive/race/sex/age(age to a point)
Filtering of who can own what type of gun(based on past history. This allows someone who wouldn't otherwise be allowed any gun to possibly own a small one)

 

[Cowboy]

Originally posted by Persol
This allows someone who wouldn't otherwise be allowed any gun to possibly own a small one)

If someone is too weird or violent to be trusted with a semi-automatic rifle, why would you trust them with a .38 pistol or even a knife or tire iron?

 

[shrubby pegasus]

galt

why do you think that it is okay for the average citizen to have an assault rifle? where should the law be drawn on what sorts of weapons can be owned by the individual? if bill gates wanted to buy some missles should he be allowed beacuse he claimed them as a defense against tyranny? it seems to me that this could run very close to becoming a nation based upon frontier law if everyone was in arms race with their neighbors. that is just me though.

i personally dont see a necessity or even a use for most peple to own guns. so i am going to voice my opinion on it. in general i see them causing more harm than good. the market place of ideas is awesome.

that john stuart mill knew what he was talking about.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Why does anybody need a car that goes faster than 60mph? Or a swimming pool? Both cause more death than guns do, and neither are protected by the Bill of Rights.

The point is that you cannot outlaw something simply because it does not seem like people need it. The day we begin demanding people have a need for something in order to own/do it, it won't be my gun collection I cry for.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by shrubby pegasus
why do you think that it is okay for the average citizen to have an assault rifle?

Do you know what an assault rifle is and how the 'Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act ' of 1994 distinguishes an 'assault' rifle from a 'sporting' rifle?

You may want to look here:
http://www.ont.com/users/kolya/AR15/aw94.htm

The point is that the 1994 act bans weapons primarily upon cosmetic differences rather than mechanical/functional ones. Fully automatic weapons were already banned as 'Machine Guns' by the 'National Firearms Act' of 1934 and the ATF was already approving or forbidding manufacture of semi-automatic weapons based upon how easily they could be converted to fully-automatic weapons as well as banning the modification of a weapon into a 'Machine Gun'.

where should the law be drawn on what sorts of weapons can be owned by the individual? if bill gates wanted to buy some missles should he be allowed beacuse he claimed them as a defense against tyranny?

This is just silly. Missiles, bombs, grenades, and grenade launchers are already illegal and are not firearms. They are covered under the 1934 Act as 'Destructive Devices'.

http://keepandbeararms.com/laws/nfa34.htm

~Raithere

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Acid Cowboy
If someone is too weird or violent to be trusted with a semi-automatic rifle, why would you trust them with a .38 pistol or even a knife or tire iron?

Why would I trust ANYBODY with a semi-automatic? The point is that people who are at risk of doing something stupid will have their power minimized by only having a .38 pistol.

This is just silly. Missiles, bombs, grenades, and grenade launchers are already illegal and are not firearms. They are covered under the 1934 Act as 'Destructive Devices'.
This should tell you just how much power a militia actually has now. I would classify missiles, bombs, and grenades as 'arms'... and I think that all weapons were meant to be convered when the founding fathers drafted it. I do not however agree to unlimited access to all types of arms, for obvious reasons. The point is where do we draw the line. I 'think' we all draw it below missles but above kitchen knives. At the same time though, the whole idea is 'defense against tyranny'. A .38 isn't much defense against a missle/bomb.

I suppose the answer may be that while our weapons are limited, the use of the governments weapons is dependant on the individuals in the armed forces using them. Perhaps the right to dissent among soldiers is what is needed. Or not, I'm sure someone will point out a flaw.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

Originally posted by Persol
Perhaps the right to dissent among soldiers is what is needed.

If a Private is given an unlawful order by a Colonel, it is the Private's duty under the Oath of Enlistment to disobey that order or face punishment under the UCMJ as an accomplice. Our military does not want drones.

Posse Comitatus prevents our military from legally acting domestically under all but the most extreme circumstances. So you can be sure that if our guys are being ordered to unload on the populace, something has gone horribly wrong, and just about every servicemember will mutiny.

 

[zanket]

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
So you can be sure that if our guys are being ordered to unload on the populace, something has gone horribly wrong, and just about every servicemember will mutiny.

Agreed, except for the mutiny part. If the Vietnam War holds any clues, just about every service member will instead participate in the unloading and then lie to cover up any investigation. And that’s not even counting the generally accepted unloading, like napalming & dropping bombs on villages. Check out Ron Ridenhour’s story. He’s one of the heroes of the My Lai massacre. Here’s an excerpt:

On this mission we went out and it's our first combat mission---our first alleged combat mission---we went out to fly around in this village and to protect the infantry soldiers from an ambush. They got on line, literally they made a line long enough for all the men in two infantry companies to stretch out in one long line and then they started walking through the village. Our job was to fly over the village and to fly behind the village to see if anybody was either trying to ambush them or to flee. Sure enough, out of the back end of the village after a few minutes here came a young man, military age, running, fleeing out of the village. There was a trail to the back end of the village down along it leading off to the mountains to the west, and this guy came out of there and he was running, like, to beat the band. We fly down alongside him and we're trying to get him to stop, we're waving at him, we're motioning at him, we're telling him---and he's like, not me, man, I'm getting out of here, he's steady trucking along.

The other doorman, the crew chief, was, his door was to this this time. And so, after a few minutes of this, the pilot said, "Slow him down--- fire a burst in front of him. Let him know we're serious." So the doorman fired first and instead of firing in front of him, he hit him in the hips. And the man went down in a heap, of course. And lay there in his own blood and began to bleed. We were totally freaked out, because this was our first mission; we never fired at anybody in anger before or under combat conditions or anything else. We shot this guy and didn't intend to. So we were, we were pretty upset. The pilot was especially upset, and he began to get on the radio and to call to the ground company, to the officers in the ground company to come help this guy. He was pretty frantic, and it took him about twenty minutes to get there and the pilot is steadily on the radio saying, "Come on! Come on, hurry, this man needs help! This man needs help!"

You could hear the infantry officer getting more and more frustrated as he ran. You could hear him moaning, you could hear him, "(pant, pant) I'm coming! I'm coming! (pant, pant)" over the radio. It took him about twenty minutes to get there, but finally they break out on the same trail through the other side of the back end of the village and run down the trail to the guy. The officer gets there, runs up to him, stops, leans down, looks at him, stands up, pulls out his .45, cocks it, BOOM! Shoots the guy in the head. Looks up at us, he gets on his radio and says, "This man no longer needs any help."

Well, that was my introduction to the reality of Vietnam as I saw it.

 

[Cowboy]

Why would I trust ANYBODY with a semi-automatic?

A sane, rational, law-abiding citizen isn't a threat to anyone, regardless of what kind of guns he or she has. I have a semi-automatic pistol and haven't harmed anyone and have no intentions of doing so unless in self defense.

The point is that people who are at risk of doing something stupid will have their power minimized by only having a .38 pistol.

You're basically saying, "Normal people can have a gun this big, but psychopaths can only have a gun this big."

My point is that people who are proved to be a threat to the rights of others shouldn't be allowed to own any gun.

 

[Cowboy]

why do you think that it is okay for the average citizen to have an assault rifle?

If the average citizen has not proved himself or herself to be a threat to others, I see no reason why he or she should be subjected to such restrictions.

where should the law be drawn on what sorts of weapons can be owned by the individual?

The individual has a right to defend himself. Pistols, shotguns and rifles are weapons of self defense.

if bill gates wanted to buy some missles should he be allowed beacuse he claimed them as a defense against tyranny?

I wasn't aware that missiles were considered firearms.

it seems to me that this could run very close to becoming a nation based upon frontier law if everyone was in arms race with their neighbors.

Then I guess it's a good think I became a cowboy!

i personally dont see a necessity or even a use for most peple to own guns.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

I see no need for people to own video games, have body piercings, write poetry that doesn't rhyme or watch soap operas. Let's ban them.

that john stuart mill knew what he was talking about.

So did George Mason.

 

[Stokes Pennwalt]

A sane, rational, law-abiding citizen isn't a threat to anyone, regardless of what kind of guns he or she has. I have a semi-automatic pistol and haven't harmed anyone and have no intentions of doing so unless in self defense.any gun.

Remember also that it's not your job to prove to anybody why you should be able to have a gun, it's their job to prove that you shouldn't. The onus is on gun control advocates, because they're the ones in contention with the default.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I have a semi-automatic pistol and haven't harmed anyone and have no intentions of doing so unless in self defense.

You contradict yourself in one sentence.

You can rephrase your sentence to the following:

I have a semi-automatic pistol and I intend to harm anyone who has intentions to harm me.

This rephrasing brings forward the aggressiveness of your statement.


Then we could discuss the fragility of the concept 'self defense'.

Obviously one would have to act before one is harmed in order to execute a succesful 'self-defense'. This suggests that people eager to defend themselves must have infallible situation assessment skills. Otherwise they will harm people who have no intention to harm them. Of course you could now come up with an example in which the intentions are clear, but as we all know real life is not so clear cut.

 

[BigBlueHead]

Stokes: Though I am not entirely up on US politics, I believe that each state has a Department of Safety which inspects consumer products to ensure that they are not dangerous to use. (Or, in the case of dangerous things, not unreasonably dangerous.) Something like a piece of furniture - like one of those dressers that falls over and crushes you if you open more than one drawer - is not of enough value that people are willing to accept a risk of injury when using it.

Cars are of economic value, and so we forgive the fact that they kill many people each year. One possible measure of the monetary worth of a person's life is their share of the GDP that cars necessarily accounted for during the time before they were killed in a car accident...

Guns are not as deadly as cars (in most states; in Texas I think they still cause more deaths). On the other hand, the economic value that guns contribute to the US is somewhat less than cars. Whereas I have read the somewhat misinterpreted statistic that civilian-owned guns save 2,500,000 American lives each year, I'm not entirely sure that the economic contribution of guns is as easily quantified as that of motor vehicles. Hence, they will probably be treated more harshly than motor vehicles when it comes to public safety problems.