Gun Restrictions and Your Rights

Criminals will alway's find a way to get a gun, it's just that simple, revoking the right to own guns will only hurt the innocent, and put society as a whole in much more danger to the whims of our goverment, the reason we have the right to own guns is the founding fathers realized that the greed of goverment knows no bounds, and the people of that goverment must be able to defend against a totalatering gov't. The more people that own guns the safer we really are, I believe some people should have to take a coarse on how to properly use one if they have never been around them, but we will never stop these whacko's but we can't limit thier ability to go on a rampage like this guy did. Safety through strength!


This is the assumption that a person is already "wacko" before he purchases a gun. There are plenty of incidents in which a normal person loses it and grabs his/her gun to exact immediate revenge (road rage, adultery, alcohol-exacerbated argument, etc). That's the main problem with guns: they provide an irrevocable and immediate end to a situation that, with time, could keep some people alive with a bruised ego as the only long standing injury.

On the flip side, if all guns are illegal then any current criminal can pretty much burglarize a home, murder the owner with relative impunity.

I say weapons manufacturers need to start developing more nonlethal yet quick incapacitating weapons to help an individual defend himself, his family and his property.

I lean more towards Schneed's view even though I wouldn't want to see it totally repealed. I know that people say, "Well, they'd go find a gun anyway." Seriously, I think it would be a little worse before it got better but then after that, I think that people who even SEE someone with a gun, would consider them a threat. Sure, Nice Korean Guy comes into the store and buys a gun, then he goes nuts. I think if guns are made totally illegal, that makes them far more inaccessible than you'd think.


How many guns are in the United States today? Gun control advocates always point to a number -- whatever that number is -- and say that it's too many. So if that's the case, and there are hundreds of millions of handguns and rifles already in the population, what happens to those weapons once they are made illegal? They go into the black market.

Now, you have the problem with guns just like you do illegal drugs. Is marijuana illegal? How difficult is it to obtain? Not very.

That horse is already out of the barn. To place any type of restriction on the ownership of firearms would be a fruitless exercise. And you only make the situation worse.

Is a .22 really going to stop an Apache gunship and an Abrams tank? I think the idea was sound when passed, but it no longer achieves its intended goal. If you think we need to be armed to prevent against government oppression, then you should lobby to make it legal to buy anti-tank rockets, surface to air missiles, anti-ship missiles, etc.

Maybe not the tank or the Apache, but it's operator.

The rice farmers of Vietnam did a pretty good job against the F-4 Phantom and the falling bombs of B-52s.

For all those against the private ownership of guns, are you glad the students at VT weren't allowed to carry firearms for self-defense?

What happened on Monday is Exhibit A in the experiment that is gun control. Law abiding individuals are denied the ability to have guns in a certain area -- crazed lunatic breaks that rule, has a gun anyway and kills scores of people.

Now, simply carry that same example to a larger scope. Why would this scenario be any different in a society which outlaws gun ownership?

Beems, I wouldn't use the VT incident as a bassi for saying that gun control laws are too strict. This guy bought his gun legally. That sorta kills the argument that gun control laws are keeping weapons out of the wrong hands.

I still cannot understand how laypeople say gun laws need to be loosened when policemen overwhelmingly think the opposite. I'm not saying people with a "loosen gun control laws" don't have interesting or valid arguments, but I haven't heard any reason why I shouldn't listen to people whose business it is to keep the streets safe.

As for Vietnam, I can assure you that not many .22s brought down F-4s and B-52s flying at 50,000 feet. We lost most of our aircrew to SAMs and AAA.

Beems, I wouldn't use the VT incident as a bassi for saying that gun control laws are too strict. This guy bought his gun legally. That sorta kills the argument that gun control laws are keeping weapons out of the wrong hands.

I still cannot understand how laypeople say gun laws need to be loosened when policemen overwhelmingly think the opposite. I'm not saying people with a "loosen gun control laws" don't have interesting or valid arguments, but I haven't heard any reason why I shouldn't listen to people whose business it is to keep the streets safe.

As for Vietnam, I can assure you that not many .22s brought down F-4s and B-52s flying at 50,000 feet. We lost most of our aircrew to SAMs and AAA.


Someone mentioned earlier that the police groups have an "agenda". It is important to remember that big groups like associaions of police chiefs and such ALWAYS have agendas. Sometimes the agendas are totally good, sometimes totally bad but mostly they're somewhere in the middle. I don't know why they support stronger gun control per se but I do know that I am not sure I give them much more credence than anyone else. I don't see where their opinion on something like this is of more value. We're not talking about an issue where it requires special training and education to understand the ins and outs. It is a pretty transparent issue that ordinary citizens can easily be just as informed about.

FRPLG, I would just assume that police officers, who have experience dealing with people who lose it and have a gun readily accessible, people who have defended themselves from criminals with the guns, who travel to gun accident scenes, etc. would have a unique perspective on the gun issue.

First, I think we have to clearly define our positions. I am not making the argument that gun control laws are keeping guns out of the wrong hands. In fact, my position is just the opposite. Gun control laws do not apply to those who break the law and use firearms to harm other people.

The VT argument does work because it represents exactly the parameters of the classic society in which restrictions on the ownership of firearms are placed upon the law abiding public.

The campus of Virginia Tech does not permit the possession of firearms -- just like some cities in the United States and around the world have similar restrictions. Since firearms will always be available on the black market no matter what legislative steps have been taken to eliminate them, those that have no intention of causing harm or breaking the law will never have firearms. They follow the law -- therefore they won't have firearms.

But a law-breaker, intent on violating the rights of those he knows to be unarmed and defenseless, is not affected by the Virginia Tech policy on firearms (just like the perpetrators in cities where gun control is very strict).

This guy did buy his guns legally, and brought them into a place where the laws say that you may not have a gun under any circumstances, for any reason. You can use this scenario in the gun control argument whether the perpetrator purchased the guns legally or on the black market. You will have the same outcome either way -- the unarmed victim will be at the complete mercy of an armed criminal.

I'd be willing to bet that the police would find their jobs much easier and safe if they could burst through the doors of unsuspecting citizens in the middle of the night without the burden of a search warrant or probable cause. Does that mean we should bow to their demands of tighter gun control?

As for Vietnam, my point was to illustrate how a determined populace whose only aim is to defend their homeland and protect their individual rights, even while armed with the most basic weaponry available can upend the most powerful, technologically advanced army the world has ever known.

And this country has far more powerful weaponry than just .22s in the general public. If poor, backward rice farmers can repel the United States of America, how would America's troops fare against their own families, hometowns, and countrymen?

Criminals will alway's find a way to get a gun, it's just that simple, revoking the right to own guns will only hurt the innocent, and put society as a whole in much more danger to the whims of our goverment, the reason we have the right to own guns is the founding fathers realized that the greed of goverment knows no bounds, and the people of that goverment must be able to defend against a totalatering gov't. The more people that own guns the safer we really are, I believe some people should have to take a coarse on how to properly use one if they have never been around them, but we will never stop these whacko's but we can't limit thier ability to go on a rampage like this guy did. Safety through strength!

nice post. i agree with you 100%.

A lot of people (e.g., Beems) have made a lot of interesting points. However, I still cannot believe we are talking about the need to bear arms in the event we need to mount an insurgency against our government. I am not trying to belittle anyone's arguments, but that one seems a little "out there" for me.