• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Centrist's Take On Guns [W: #282]

Dragonfly

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
31,262
Reaction score
19,770
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I own a handful of guns. I have a lever action 35 caliber rifle. I have two shotguns. One’s a pump action and the other is a side-by-side. I have three pistols. Three of the guns I have were inherited from grandfathers, and two I bought myself. The rifle was bought for deer hunting. I bought one pistol for cheap target shooting. It’s a 22 caliber. All my guns are in locking gun safes in my house except for one which sits in a drawer next to my bed. The youngest person in my house will turn 20 in a little over a month. When the kids were young there was never a gun in my house that wasn’t locked in a gun safe. The gun next to the bed was only put there within the last year or so after next door neighbor’s house was broken into.

I believe I have the right to defend myself to the best of my abilities. I believe I have the right to try to protect my family and home. I believe I fall into the category of a reasonable, law abiding citizen who should not be overtly-punished for the crimes of others.

I would love to own two more weapons at some point in the future, but right now I can’t justify spending the money. The location I live in just doesn’t provide a convenient place to shoot and practice on a regular basis. One day I hope to live some place where an open-air shooting range is relatively close by. I’d like a 9mm semi-auto pistol. And yes – one day it’d sure be great to own a tactical rifle in some caliber.

That being said, I also do not think the 2A is as broad and open-ended as many here do. I do not think every single American citizen has an open invitation to own anything and everything they chose regarding a firearm simply because they were born in the USofA.

I think things like background checks, registration, and waiting periods are reasonable and warranted. I would not have a problem with requiring training courses for weapons that meet a certain criteria. Some basic competency and firearm safety certification.

I know the driver’s license analogy wears thin on some people’s nerves, but in all honesty it is reasonable and in my mind acceptable given the dangers a gun presents.

You want to drive a car, prove you’re capable of some bare minimum of vehicle control and understanding of the laws of the road. Same should apply for guns. Both are very deadly in the wrong hands, and perfectly safe in the right hands. I fully understand that the Constitution says nothing about the "right to drive a car”. They didn’t know what a car was back then.

Just like driver’s licenses are tiered I see no reason why gun licenses can’t be as well. As you step up in the classes of guns you wish to own, you take more qualification tests. You want a simple bolt action, single shot 22 you take a relatively simple qualification test. You want a semi-auto tactical rifle, the test would be more rigorous and detailed. Just like if you wanted a driver’s license to drive a tractor & trailer.

Now I know full well that criminals, intent on doing very bad things, won’t follow the law. We all know that. Thing is, lots of gun deaths and shootings are not just hard-core criminals/terrorists. Many are full-on accidents due to stupidity. Many are regular people who just snap one day. Some are passionate crimes by distraught lovers. Some are kids who haven’t been taught proper safety.

We’ve seen what a highly “motivated” group of people can do with something as simple as a box cutter. We’ve seen what some people can do with pressure cookers, nails, and gun powder. There’s plenty of stats to show that hammers, knives, baseball bats, and even just bare hands can accomplish the same end results as a bullet. Much more difficult for a hammer to accomplish what a semi-auto can accomplish though. When's the last time a 4 year old killed his 5 year old sister because he was playing with his dad's hammer and dropped it?
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

It’s just asinine to look at the gun violence in the US and not try to do SOMETHING to reduce it. Can we stop it completely? No. Can it be reduced? Don’t know, but it’s sure worth a try. Maybe we can’t stop a terrorist from going on a suicidal rampage, but stopping a kid from killing another kid could be accomplished. Stopping a drunk twenty-something from shooting his ex-girlfriends boyfriend could be accomplished. Stopping the parents of toddlers from keeping loaded guns within reach of their unsupervised kids may never completely happen, but trying to get there is a worthwhile investment in my mind.

Proper education. Proper and comprehensive safety training. Reasonable restrictions that can be chipped away over time based on training and competency is not violating anything, and possibly protecting society at large.

A 16 year old kid who’s never shot a gun, should not have the “right” to walk into a gun store and buy a 50 caliber Desert Eagle and some ammunition just because of the 2A. Nor should a 30 year old. Can’t stop them from buying black market on the streets, but that doesn’t mean they should be able to buy it legally in a store. That kind of reasoning just doesn’t make sense.

Simply because “criminals won’t follow the law” doesn’t mean having laws is worthless.

I am NOT advocating a ban on firearms. Don't insist I am.
I am NOT suggesting you don't have the right to own a gun.
I do NOT believe the registration of a gun puts anyone in danger of being targeted by the government. That's CT forum fodder.

I know full well criminals/terrorists don't care what the laws and regulations are.

I believe there's a reasonable path to responsible gun ownership and education is where it starts.

(let the fun begin)
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

Dragonfly said:
It’s just asinine to look at the gun violence in the US and not try to do SOMETHING to reduce it. Can we stop it completely? No. Can it be reduced? Don’t know, but it’s sure worth a try. Maybe we can’t stop a terrorist from going on a suicidal rampage, but stopping a kid from killing another kid could be accomplished. Stopping a drunk twenty-something from shooting his ex-girlfriends boyfriend could be accomplished. Stopping the parents of toddlers from keeping loaded guns within reach of their unsupervised kids may never completely happen, but trying to get there is a worthwhile investment in my mind.

Proper education. Proper and comprehensive safety training. Reasonable restrictions that can be chipped away over time based on training and competency is not violating anything, and possibly protecting society at large.

A 16 year old kid who’s never shot a gun, should not have the “right” to walk into a gun store and buy a 50 caliber Desert Eagle and some ammunition just because of the 2A. Nor should a 30 year old. Can’t stop them from buying black market on the streets, but that doesn’t mean they should be able to buy it legally in a store. That kind of reasoning just doesn’t make sense.

Simply because “criminals won’t follow the law” doesn’t mean having laws is worthless.

I am NOT advocating a ban on firearms. Don't insist I am.
I am NOT suggesting you don't have the right to own a gun.
I do NOT believe the registration of a gun puts anyone in danger of being targeted by the government. That's CT forum fodder.

I know full well criminals/terrorists don't care what the laws and regulations are.

I believe there's a reasonable path to responsible gun ownership and education is where it starts.

(let the fun begin)
Click to expand...

The problem is that registration makes it possible for government to target you. This would be especially the case, when a given government wanted to misuse its other powers.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

Ok, so when can we expect the "centrist" to speak about their take on guns?
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

joG said:
The problem is that registration makes it possible for government to target you. This would be especially the case, when a given government wanted to misuse its other powers.
Click to expand...

You weren't supposed to make that argument because he doesn't know how to counter it rather than to suggest that the government would NEVER do such a thing. Any concerns about government overreach is just crazy CT stuff, y'know.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

joG said:
The problem is that registration makes it possible for government to target you. This would be especially the case, when a given government wanted to misuse its other powers.
Click to expand...

"The problem is that (insert virtually anything) let's the government target you. That would especially be the case...."
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

joG said:
The problem is that registration makes it possible for government to target you. This would be especially the case, when a given government wanted to misuse its other powers.
Click to expand...
They already know who has the guns. It's not rocket science.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

X Factor said:
You weren't supposed to make that argument because he doesn't know how to counter it rather than to suggest that the government would NEVER do such a thing. Any concerns about government overreach is just crazy CT stuff, y'know.
Click to expand...

It's a silly argument rooted in the belief that gun registration will somehow be different from what already happens.
"The problem is that (insert virtually anything) let's the government target you. That would especially be the case...."
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

Dragonfly said:
That being said, I also do not think the 2A is as broad and open-ended as many here do. I do not think every single American citizen has an open invitation to own anything and everything they chose regarding a firearm simply because they were born in the USofA.
Click to expand...

Before I respond to the rest let me clarify something. The right to self defense is not limited to people "born in the USofA." We are merely fortunate enough that we had enough leaders concerned enough about citizens retaining the ability to arm themselves to argue in favor of an Amendment preserving this right from government infringement during the ratification of our Constitution. The fact is, EVERYONE has the right to arm themselves in self-defense regardless of citizenship.

Dragonfly said:
I think things like background checks, registration, and waiting periods are reasonable and warranted. I would not have a problem with requiring training courses for weapons that meet a certain criteria. Some basic competency and firearm safety certification.

I know the driver’s license analogy wears thin on some people’s nerves, but in all honesty it is reasonable and in my mind acceptable given the dangers a gun presents.

You want to drive a car, prove you’re capable of some bare minimum of vehicle control and understanding of the laws of the road. Same should apply for guns. Both are very deadly in the wrong hands, and perfectly safe in the right hands. I fully understand that the Constitution says nothing about the "right to drive a car”. They didn’t know what a car was back then.

Just like driver’s licenses are tiered I see no reason why gun licenses can’t be as well. As you step up in the classes of guns you wish to own, you take more qualification tests. You want a simple bolt action, single shot 22 you take a relatively simple qualification test. You want a semi-auto tactical rifle, the test would be more rigorous and detailed. Just like if you wanted a driver’s license to drive a tractor & trailer.
Click to expand...

Now I eliminated the appeals to emotion and focused on your core statements.

Once upon a time I too thought much as you did. That is until I studied world history. The problem with each of your "rational" suggestions is that any of them can be used to both limit the right to only those who meet stringent requirements, and to identify everyone and the type of weapons they possess so that other "rational" gun control methods can be enacted and used to disarm the people.

I agree that use and safety training is valuable and a good idea, but prefer that it be voluntary. Instead of requiring it, which would also entail al sorts of "certifications" by various government agencies, I'd rather see a social value system which encourages it by moral pressure. This could be encouraged by advertising campaigns explaining the value of safety and use training, rather than laws and documentation requirements.

So while I applaud your ideals, I cannot support your suggestions. The right shall not be infringed, and that is exactly what you would be doing with your list of requirements.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

David_N said:
It's a silly argument rooted in the belief that gun registration will somehow be different from what already happens.
"The problem is that (insert virtually anything) let's the government target you. That would especially be the case...."
Click to expand...

Why anyone bothers to engage you in anything is beyond me (and don't think I'm going to start now). All you do is dismiss anything you happen to disagree with and that's fine, but then, what's the point? I mean, I know you have a post count to keep up and all but I've never seen even inkling of understanding or even an attempt to do anything but vilify any position that isn't yours, so go talk to your echo chamber.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

X Factor said:
Why anyone bothers to engage you in anything is beyond me (and don't think I'm going to start now). All you do is dismiss anything you happen to disagree with and that's fine, but then, what's the point? I mean, I know you have a post count to keep and all but I've never seen even inkling of understanding or even an attempt to do anything but vilify any position that isn't yours.
Click to expand...

:lol:
"The problem is that (insert virtually anything) let's the government target you. That would especially be the case...."
^ Literally sums up the silliness of the argument. :shrug:
I don't post as much anymore, some days I'll post a lot, depends if I have time.. why does that matter anyways? Don't care to actually argue anything?
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

Have the guns you inherited from relatives been registered in your name?
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

JunkyardDogma said:
What part of the government knowing who does or doesn't have guns are you not understanding?
Click to expand...

It made no sense because, well, it was a stupid comment. Besides, if that was true, why the desperation to have gun owners register? According to you, there's no need.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

X Factor said:
It made no sense because, well, it was a stupid comment. Besides, if that was true, why the desperation to have gun owners register? According to you, there's no need.
Click to expand...
There is no desperation, and there is no need. They already know, that and much, much more.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

JunkyardDogma said:
There is no desperation, and there is no need. They already know, that and much, much more.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the OP. He's advocating something pointless and unnecessary then.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

I would like to throw my 2 bits (25 cents) into this, so I will splice the above and comment on each part. Normally I hate splicing replies, but this is a long complex post so there is no choice.

----------------------------------------------

Dragonfly said:
I own a handful of guns. I have a lever action 35 caliber rifle. I have two shotguns. One’s a pump action and the other is a side-by-side. I have three pistols. Three of the guns I have were inherited from grandfathers, and two I bought myself. The rifle was bought for deer hunting. I bought one pistol for cheap target shooting. It’s a 22 caliber. All my guns are in locking gun safes in my house except for one which sits in a drawer next to my bed. The youngest person in my house will turn 20 in a little over a month. When the kids were young there was never a gun in my house that wasn’t locked in a gun safe. The gun next to the bed was only put there within the last year or so after next door neighbor’s house was broken into...
Click to expand...

Not sure if you really mean "3 pistols" or if you meant to say "3 handguns." Are any of them revolvers? Remember pistols + revolvers = handguns. Pistols have a single chamber and are usually semiautomatic. Revolvers have several chambers and are usually single or double action but require manually advancing the chambers into position for firing in either action, single or double.

I would keep them all in your gun safes all day long, and then move one either under your pillow for at night, or to your side in a holster if you are carrying. I prefer open carry for the woodlands and concealed carry for within civilization where others are around. But if someone walks in with open carry then it forces you yourself to un-conceal your weapon as well, because open carry has a 1/2 second advantage in draw to concealed carry.

Like you I started sleeping with my pistol only after a burglary at my home. I figure the home invasion will be next because the burglar(s) saw the big gun safe and will probably be back for more.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Dragonfly said:
I believe I have the right to defend myself to the best of my abilities. I believe I have the right to try to protect my family and home. I believe I fall into the category of a reasonable, law abiding citizen who should not be overtly-punished for the crimes of others...
Click to expand...

According to John Locke the 18th Century (1700's) philosopher, everyone has the "natural right" to defend themselves.

According to Aristotle the ancient Greek philosopher however, only strength enforces what is right. Any autocrat can enforce any rights that he/she desires upon his/her people (remembering that Artemesia was a Greek warrior queen during the Persian Wars and therefore back then in ancient times some women though not many had already evolved to the pinnacle of power, not only Maggie Thatcher or Queen Elizabeth 1st).

So what you believe has less force than what your sovereign allows.

In the USA the People are sovereign and although they must follow the US and States' Constitution(s) they are empowered by the Founding Freemasons to change it/them whenever they can agree with a supermajority. So our right to self defense might be taken away at any time if enough people will agree. In most of California, NY, Hawaii, and DC this right has already been taken away. Also in Chicago.

So although your right to self defense may be morally correct it is not necessarily politically correct. Look at Europe and Asia -- their peoples are all slaves to their plutocracies.


--------------------------------------------
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

Dragonfly said:
...I would love to own two more weapons at some point in the future, but right now I can’t justify spending the money. The location I live in just doesn’t provide a convenient place to shoot and practice on a regular basis. One day I hope to live some place where an open-air shooting range is relatively close by. I’d like a 9mm semi-auto pistol. And yes – one day it’d sure be great to own a tactical rifle in some caliber...
Click to expand...

I am still guessing here from the contexts whether any of your present 3 guns are revolvers?

A 9mm pistol is an ideal self defense weapon. With expanding bullets against opponents not wearing bullet proof vests the destructive power is almost as good as the venerable 45ACP.

And with so many combat carbines like the AR's and the AK's and their variants and clones now in proliferation, you pretty much NEED a carbine of your own in order to defend yourself at medium or long range against someone with a combat gun. Whenever you finally buy one, just make sure it has an operating rod handle designed into it for quick and easy clearing of jams. All guns jam. So a good gun must therefore be easy to unjam. There are beautiful AK clones and several M-1 Carbine clones that are perfect for self defense and CQB offense.

Don't make the mistake of just playing G/I Joe like so many other copycat enthusiast fans.


-----------------------------------------


Dragonfly said:
...That being said, I also do not think the 2A is as broad and open-ended as many here do. I do not think every single American citizen has an open invitation to own anything and everything they chose regarding a firearm simply because they were born in the USofA.

I think things like background checks, registration, and waiting periods are reasonable and warranted. I would not have a problem with requiring training courses for weapons that meet a certain criteria. Some basic competency and firearm safety certification.

I know the driver’s license analogy wears thin on some people’s nerves, but in all honesty it is reasonable and in my mind acceptable given the dangers a gun presents.

You want to drive a car, prove you’re capable of some bare minimum of vehicle control and understanding of the laws of the road. Same should apply for guns. Both are very deadly in the wrong hands, and perfectly safe in the right hands. I fully understand that the Constitution says nothing about the "right to drive a car”. They didn’t know what a car was back then.

Just like driver’s licenses are tiered I see no reason why gun licenses can’t be as well. As you step up in the classes of guns you wish to own, you take more qualification tests. You want a simple bolt action, single shot 22 you take a relatively simple qualification test. You want a semi-auto tactical rifle, the test would be more rigorous and detailed. Just like if you wanted a driver’s license to drive a tractor & trailer.

Now I know full well that criminals, intent on doing very bad things, won’t follow the law. We all know that. Thing is, lots of gun deaths and shootings are not just hard-core criminals/terrorists. Many are full-on accidents due to stupidity. Many are regular people who just snap one day. Some are passionate crimes by distraught lovers. Some are kids who haven’t been taught proper safety.

We’ve seen what a highly “motivated” group of people can do with something as simple as a box cutter. We’ve seen what some people can do with pressure cookers, nails, and gun powder. There’s plenty of stats to show that hammers, knives, baseball bats, and even just bare hands can accomplish the same end results as a bullet. Much more difficult for a hammer to accomplish what a semi-auto can accomplish though. When's the last time a 4 year old killed his 5 year old sister because he was playing with his dad's hammer and dropped it?
Click to expand...

Ok this is the crux (cross) of your argument.

I agree with the need for training however there are people like Diane Feinstein (a very traumatized sick puppy) and Governor Moonbeam who would use a training requirement to completely infringe your gun rights. So that is not feasible. Don't be naïve.

While training is critical, people must be free to ignore training and still own firearms.

2A is infinitely broad. However it began to be infringed soon after the Civil War to justify depriving freed slaves from having guns, which back then seemed like perfect common sense, because being economically deprived these people were driven to crimes from necessity.

Since then the same court room mentality and trends and precedents have now been used to infringe the 2A rights of everybody.

That's called a slippery slope. In this case it is not a fallacy. In this case it is what actually happened.

Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

Ok that was hard work !!

I hate spliced posts and I hate splicing them as well.

Naïve is when someone does not take all the monsters into account.

Feinstein and Moonbeam are monsters. I have gotten to study these perverted people for a long time -- decades -- over 35 years.

They have armed guards of their own but they do not allow anybody else in California to arm themselves and they would take that right away from everyone in the entire USA in a heartbeat if they could.

Those who are naïve simply are not aware.
 
Re: A Centrist's Take On Guns

Dragonfly said:
It’s just asinine to look at the gun violence in the US and not try to do SOMETHING to reduce it. Can we stop it completely? No. Can it be reduced? Don’t know, but it’s sure worth a try. Maybe we can’t stop a terrorist from going on a suicidal rampage, but stopping a kid from killing another kid could be accomplished. Stopping a drunk twenty-something from shooting his ex-girlfriends boyfriend could be accomplished. Stopping the parents of toddlers from keeping loaded guns within reach of their unsupervised kids may never completely happen, but trying to get there is a worthwhile investment in my mind.

Proper education. Proper and comprehensive safety training. Reasonable restrictions that can be chipped away over time based on training and competency is not violating anything, and possibly protecting society at large.

A 16 year old kid who’s never shot a gun, should not have the “right” to walk into a gun store and buy a 50 caliber Desert Eagle and some ammunition just because of the 2A. Nor should a 30 year old. Can’t stop them from buying black market on the streets, but that doesn’t mean they should be able to buy it legally in a store. That kind of reasoning just doesn’t make sense.

Simply because “criminals won’t follow the law” doesn’t mean having laws is worthless.

I am NOT advocating a ban on firearms. Don't insist I am.
I am NOT suggesting you don't have the right to own a gun.
I do NOT believe the registration of a gun puts anyone in danger of being targeted by the government. That's CT forum fodder.

I know full well criminals/terrorists don't care what the laws and regulations are.

I believe there's a reasonable path to responsible gun ownership and education is where it starts.

(let the fun begin)
Click to expand...

California already has all of this nonsense and you saw what just happened in San Bernardino.

(For those of you struggling with how to spell San Bernardino just remember the dog -- Saint Bernard -- then add "ino" to the end of it.)

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom