Anti gun legislation

[007]

Look bro, this is completely off topic, and, as a student of history myself, I am well aware of the facts. To this day, you cannot drive a loaded truck through most of the country. There are several train tracks that the trucks get loaded onto to pass through the country. It was that way in WWII as well, so all this talk about numerical superiority and tanks doesn't mean anything when attacking a country with dug in multi layered, mutually supporting defensive positions in terrain that is impassable except on roads for wheeled vehicles. Yes, they could have waited them out. It would have taken years, since an attack would have been too costly. The people were trained and knew where to go if there was an invasion. They would have ensured that the Germans would have suffered for every step into their country. Hence, benefits outweighed by the potential losses. BTW, even holding a force in position to contain the Swiss was something the Germans could not afford at the time, especially given the terms that the Swiss were willing to allow.


We have two different interpretations of the decision process. Now let get this thread back on topic!

Exactly, plus the Swiss had superior marksmen that would have embarrassed the Germans. Anyone that has spent time in our service, knows that a person growing up shooting is far superior to someone that has just recently been trained. Its night and day.

I don't think the power of a well trained armed citizen is off-topic. Look at the armies around the world and you can see that our 2 million troops aren't much. Pretend Russia, China, and N. Korea are an attacking force and I'm glad there are 200 million guns in the U.S.

Its too bad we don't have a system like the Swiss to insure that criminals are up against more than just a few cops.

 

[Wyowanderer]

To anyone who thinks for a minute that stricter gun laws are the answer to the recent tragedy in Tucson, consider this:

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, trucks drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.

We need to HOLD THE PERSON ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, not the means they chose to utilize!

.02

Ditto. And requiring a test in order to exercise a Constitutional right is unconstitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't we understand?

 

[Wyowanderer]

Somebody that gets it. . .

Stricter laws only service to mire the law abiding. They will not stop someone on the fringe. Tougher laws would not have stopped the tragedy in Tucson. There are 200 million guns in the US.

Very well put.
Those who want more gun laws while saying they respect the 2A aren't telling the whole story. They wait until someone breaks the law and THEN they call for more legislation against firearms; others don't wait; they erroneously believe that we can legislate morality with firearms.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Ditto. And requiring a test in order to exercise a Constitutional right is unconstitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't we understand?

The Constitution protects our right to arm ourselves, not our obligation to arm everyone. At some point, it is completely reasonable to draw the line. Kids don't need to be around guns without supervision, nor crazy people, nor criminals who have a past history of violence.

Why is it such a big deal to require a proficiency test? How is that hurting anyone?

 

[greenmeanie]

when attacking a country with dug in multi layered, mutually supporting defensive positions in terrain that is impassable except on roads for wheeled vehicles.

We have two different interpretations of the decision process. Now let get this thread back on topic!

Have you actually ever been here?

/Edit/ My original point was merely that the Swiss have guns. They have a completely different attitude to them and very strict laws on their use. People don't use them for home defense or against criminals unless they are the police. Very, very few people carry a loaded weapon in public and those that do have to jump through a lot of hoops to get a license. As Scott points out other countries have very different legislation. I was calling out the two popular misperceptions that Swiss society is as safe and polite as it is because of guns and that Hitler did not invade Switzerland because of their militia. You may not like it but it is the case.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Have you actually ever been here?

Yes. I have both been there and studied their logistics network for my Masters dissertation.

 

[Wyowanderer]

The Constitution protects our right to arm ourselves, not our obligation to arm everyone. At some point, it is completely reasonable to draw the line. Kids don't need to be around guns without supervision, nor crazy people, nor criminals who have a past history of violence.

Why is it such a big deal to require a proficiency test? How is that hurting anyone?

Where, pray tell, does the Constitution permit any of this? Again, what part of "shall not be infringed" is too difficult to understand?
It might be what some want, but that doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

 

[xtatik]

To anyone who thinks for a minute that stricter gun laws are the answer to the recent tragedy in Tucson, consider this:

If guns kill people, then pencils misspell words, trucks drive drunk, and spoons make people fat.

Tired stuff, already mentioned here countless times by others who don't understand the point to this thread. We're not talking about controlling guns...we're talking about this....


down here!

We need to HOLD THE PERSON ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, not the means they chose to utilize!.02

Yeah this. We're talking about controlling people as you suggest here.

 

[xtatik]

Where, pray tell, does the Constitution permit any of this? Again, what part of "shall not be infringed" is too difficult to understand?
It might be what some want, but that doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

This same comment has already been made here. The 2A has already been "infringed" upon in a number of well reasoned ways.
See post #119 here.

 

[Wyowanderer]

Of course, my own viewpoints would earn me ire from the other side of the spectrum... I believe guns should have titles like boats and cars. I guess I'd make a bad politician because I would piss everyone off. Oh well...

Any thoughts on common sense gun control laws, maybe something that can actually be achieved as opposed to Utopian rhetoric?

Title? You mean CERTIFICATE of title. It's the same document that allows the gov't to tax, and when said tax isn't paid, to confiscate.

Gun laws have nothing to do with common sense; gun laws are about incrementalism and little else.

 

[Wyowanderer]

Tired stuff, already mentioned here countless times by others who don't understand the point to this thread. We're not talking about controlling guns...we're talking about this....


down here!


Yeah this. We're talking about controlling people as you suggest here.

"Tired", yet no meaningful response to it. It still tells the truth, as it did when it was new and less "tired".

And as for controlling people, I'll control myself. I don't need the government or its representative doing it. If YOU do, please volunteer to be the subject of a country that controls its populace. In this country, the people still control the government.

Edit:
I mean no disrespect to any here; this is a contentious subject, and I have very strong opinions about it.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Where, pray tell, does the Constitution permit any of this? Again, what part of "shall not be infringed" is too difficult to understand?
It might be what some want, but that doesn't mean it's Constitutional.

Are you seriously suggesting tha we should allow children, mentally challenged / unstable people, and criminals to own guns? They are not forbade by the Constitution, nor are the states' rights to enact laws to regulate ownership (like it or not).

Have you actually ever been here?

/Edit/ My original point was merely that the Swiss have guns. They have a completely different attitude to them and very strict laws on their use. People don't use them for home defense or against criminals unless they are the police. Very, very few people carry a loaded weapon in public and those that do have to jump through a lot of hoops to get a license. As Scott points out other countries have very different legislation. I was calling out the two popular misperceptions that Swiss society is as safe and polite as it is because of guns and that Hitler did not invade Switzerland because of their militia. You may not like it but it is the case.

Correct, the mere presence of guns has little to do with the fact that the Germans did not invade Switzerland. That is not what I was suggesting, rather that the terrain in most of the country is so favorable to a defending force that a civilian population with firearms and training could make for a logistical nightmare scenario that would cause horrific casualties and devastate morale for the invading force. Arming the populace in this fashion would create a ready force that lacks only a coordinating body to empower. A good idea. My apologies for not making my assertion more clear the first time.

 

[xtatik]

"Tired", yet no meaningful response to it.

And as for controlling people, I'll control myself. I don't need the government or its representative doing it. If YOU do, please volunteer to be the subject of a country that controls its populace. In this country, the people still control the government.

OK, I can see why you don't like the word control. We'll use governance. We choose how we wish to be governed. Meaning we decide on which laws we want our representative legislatures to pass or not. You only control (edit: oops, excuse me) ahem, govern yourself within those confines if you're a law abiding citizen.
I really don't want to comb back through nearly 300 posts to find these types of comments. But, as you could expect, they're in here. Yes, "tired" as in worn out.

 

[Wyowanderer]

This same comment has already been made here. The 2A has already been "infringed" upon in a number of well reasoned ways.
See post #119 here.

That doesn't mean it will STAY infringed. You couldn't own a pistol in DC until recently, because the Supreme Court struck down a bad law.
Just because the 2A has been infringed doesn't make it okay OR permanent.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Title? You mean CERTIFICATE of title. It's the same document that allows the gov't to tax, and when said tax isn't paid, to confiscate.

Yep. Make them titled entities that require legal documentation for transfer of ownership.

There are criminals that buy guns all too easily from law abiding citizens under the current set of laws. I want that to stop. Legal transfer, background check for every transfer. No more selling a gun to the guy down the street because he seems like a nice enough guy. I know this is already "illegal." Make it have teeth.

Gun laws have nothing to do with common sense; gun laws are about incrementalism and little else.

Please elaborate.