The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Guns!!
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-20-2008, 05:57 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

I don't think being a "liberal" or a "conservative" has much to do with interpreting the 2nd Amendment, or the Constitution in general. The writers of the constituion framed it so it could be amended as required, as has been done often.

When you use phrases like "libs" it takes the conversation to a lower level of petulent name calling. Let us remember the cultured good manners of William F. Buckley Jr.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-20-2008, 08:04 AM
kenj1986's Avatar
kenj1986 kenj1986 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
I won't go into the idea of how setting up for militias in the late 1700s bears no relation to what many extremist gun owners consider their Constitutional rights today.
A militia isn't something that is "set up", it's simply all the citizens of a state who are armed. The price of owning a gun is being responsible for defending your state and being subject to your state's regulations. Each state has the right to tell its militia what guns are acceptable to own (regulating its militia). Federal gun control regulations are unconstitutional. The federal government should implement an interstate mental health and gun owner registry for those who try to circumvent an individual state's laws and move between states.

If a doctor has to register and conform to regulations to practice medicine in another state, a gun owner should have to register and conform as well.
__________________
KenJ of Alpha Centauri
--
Kirk - "Name! Rank!"
Chekov - "Chekov, Pavel. Rank: Admiral!"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:28 AM
Berengarius7 Berengarius7 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NCC-73515 View Post
Strange mentalities...
Not strange mentalities, human mentalities. The same human mentalities that helped us survive on this planet for a million years. Protect your home, defend your tribe, get meat for your family so they will have protein to build strong bodies and gather food so they won't starve when the harsh winter months don't allow hunting and gathering. Bottom line: survival. The strong survive. The weak or those who are afraid to make the hard decisions and take the bitter road that leads to good hunting and plentiful water, don't.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-20-2008, 10:55 AM
kenj1986's Avatar
kenj1986 kenj1986 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 144
Default

Using the words Liberal and Conservative is misleading.
There are people who want to ignore the constitution on both ends of the "political spectrum".
The Constitution says what it says.
There is no way to "interpret" a constitutional right out of existence.
It goes both ways.
Nor is there any way to interpret a right where none exists.
__________________
KenJ of Alpha Centauri
--
Kirk - "Name! Rank!"
Chekov - "Chekov, Pavel. Rank: Admiral!"

Last edited by kenj1986 : 04-20-2008 at 10:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-20-2008, 11:50 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
My main beef with the NRA is that they stand in the way of some basic safety measures. No one is ever going to take all the guns out of American society (unless things get wayyyyy messed up), so why can't the NRA just let some certain steps be taken? How about a 7 day waiting period with a full background check, limits on ammo types and certain gun types, etc. (Be honest - a fully automatic rifle is fun to fire, but who really needs one?) I was a member of the NRA for a few years, but left when they got too rigid.

I've been trying to talk the hubby into a shotgun for 3 years now!
I agree with you. I am not an NRA Member. I think the waiting period for background checks is unneccesary because the technology today allows for near instant checks to be done. When I bought my shotgun the clerk got on the phone and gave all my information, then in a few minutes i was approved. That satisfies me. I think there are big holes in the background information though, like I said before regarding the mentally ill.
I also believe there needs to be more done regarding background checks at Gun Shows. Some of those "private" sales that get around the background check laws are crazy!!. Many vendors at gun shows should be considered dealers and required to pay for background checks. i do not know the law as it is now for this, but maybe it should say a "private" seller is someone that does not sell more than 2-3 guns a month. This should NOT include assault rifles!!! ALL ASSAULT WEAPON SALES SHOULD HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS...PERIOD.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-20-2008, 11:56 AM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
I go along with much of what Jer says. I think gun control would be a much more reasonable issue to handle and legislate if the NRA and supporters would not treat every attempt at increasing safety measures, background checks and such as a full-frontal assault on their basic human rights.

Also, I've never quite understood the somewhat paranoid scenario which always crops up in such discussions -- if an armed group attacks my house, I want all the firepower I can to defend my family. Um, how often do roving gangs of armed thieves launch a military assault on a family dwelling in this country? Seriously. Were we invaded by Mongols anytime recently that I missed? No gun owner should need an AK-47 or M-4 to defend their home against say an armed burglar, which is a much more common uncommon scenario for home defense.

With any topic, extreme viewpoints (on either end of the spectrum) are counterproductive and weaken any valid argument to be made.

I won't go into the idea of how setting up for militias in the late 1700s bears no relation to what many extremist gun owners consider their Constitutional rights today.

MrQ, I certainly appreciate your more moderate stance including better gun safety and registration standards (why any gun owner or NRA supporter wouldn't back such things is beyond me), and I definitely salute you for delineating how you would modify your current situation if you had children in the house. Would that all gun owners were so responsible!
I would not describe the hypothetical "armed gang home invasion" as paranoid. It only takes one person armed with a knife to kill a member of your family. I do not believe home defense REQUIRES an assault weapon, but it should remain lawful for a law abiding citizen to use one for that purpose if he/she wants. Home invasions occur at a much higher rate than most realize. I do not have the statistics, but it only has to happen once to change your life. By the way...I have had my car and home broken into, on seperate occasions, and both occured when I was not around.

Last edited by MrQ1701 : 04-20-2008 at 12:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:05 PM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kenj1986 View Post
A militia isn't something that is "set up", it's simply all the citizens of a state who are armed. The price of owning a gun is being responsible for defending your state and being subject to your state's regulations. Each state has the right to tell its militia what guns are acceptable to own (regulating its militia). Federal gun control regulations are unconstitutional. The federal government should implement an interstate mental health and gun owner registry for those who try to circumvent an individual state's laws and move between states.

If a doctor has to register and conform to regulations to practice medicine in another state, a gun owner should have to register and conform as well.
In a way, there already is a registry for gun owners. I have purchased all my guns at shops brand new. I have never made a private purchase. The serial numbers for my guns are registered to me. If any of my guns are stolen it is my responsability to report that. If not, when I crime is commited with one of my guns, the police will knock on my door. If I make a private sale I should have the proper bill of sale and information for the person I am selling to. Then I would make sure that is reflected with law enforecment (I am not sure how that is done)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:23 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
I would not describe the hypothetical "armed gang home invasion" as paranoid. It only takes one person armed with a knife to kill a member of your family. I do not believe home defense REQUIRES an assault weapon, but it should remain lawful for a law abiding citizen to use one for that purpose if he/she wants. Home invasions occur at a much higher rate than most realize. I do not have the statistics, but it only has to happen once to change your life. By the way...I have had my car an home broken into, on seperate occasions, and both occured when I was not around.
Fine, but your first example was not about "one person armed with a knife," which was the point I was addressing. Since you raise that more likely example, it should not take an assault weapon to defend your home against a lone intruder with a knife. A simple handgun would 'out-weapon' the intruder immediately. Whereas firing a automatic assault weapon in your home to kill one intruder would do more damage to one's home than the knife-wielding thief ever could.

As a gun owner, would you agree that military style assault weapons are not designed for home defense in the knife-wielding intruder scenario you describe?

To your last point: sorry to hear your home and car were broken into, that's sucks across the board. But to the point of this discussion: you being a gun owner -- and by all evidence, a conscientious and safe one -- still prevented neither crime from occurring, did it?

The thing is, few people would argue against self-defense, whether through gun ownership or other means. That's not the issue. The problem we face today is that far more Americans are killed by guns on a daily basis than are saved by them. There is a dire lack of control of guns in this country, and some measures of gaining control (which is NOT to say banning all gun ownership!) would save far more lives daily than hypothetical examples of home defense.

Surely a better balance of ownership and control can be achieved that will save lives and still allow individuals the ability to defend themselves.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-20-2008, 12:59 PM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Fine, but your first example was not about "one person armed with a knife," which was the point I was addressing. Since you raise that more likely example, it should not take an assault weapon to defend your home against a lone intruder with a knife. A simple handgun would 'out-weapon' the intruder immediately. Whereas firing a automatic assault weapon in your home to kill one intruder would do more damage to one's home than the knife-wielding thief ever could..
In my original example I said I could defend my family with an M-4. I did not use the specific home invasion example. But, yes, I agree an assault weapon would cause much damage to one's home. Gun owners must know the capability of their weapons and of the round being fired. Many assault weapon rounds (bullets) can penetrate many walls and still be deadly. I believe shotguns are best for home defense.
I suppose i was trying to say that an assault weapon, in the hands of someone trained to use it, can help the odds if that person were in a situation against numerous armed criminals. I also must say I regularly go camping and an assault weapon would make a good defense against dangerous animals, for me personally anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
As a gun owner, would you agree that military style assault weapons are not designed for home defense in the knife-wielding intruder scenario you describe?.
No, they are not designed for home defense, but if I wanted to keep one loaded and ready it would make one hell of a good defense. I do have the training and am comfortable with my abilities to accurately shoot, even in close quarters. But for most people they are not a good choice. Simple, easy to aim and fire is best. I also do not have to worry about shooting a neighbor if a round goes through a wall because my home has walls built like a fortress.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
To your last point: sorry to hear your home and car were broken into, that's sucks across the board. But to the point of this discussion: you being a gun owner -- and by all evidence, a conscientious and safe one -- still prevented neither crime from occurring, did it?

The thing is, few people would argue against self-defense, whether through gun ownership or other means. That's not the issue. The problem we face today is that far more Americans are killed by guns on a daily basis than are saved by them. There is a dire lack of control of guns in this country, and some measures of gaining control (which is NOT to say banning all gun ownership!) would save far more lives daily than hypothetical examples of home defense.?.
Thank you for your thoughts regarding the two violations I have been through. No I could not prevent those two break-ins from happening. Even if I were home when my house was broken into I still could not prevent it, but I could REACT and stop the action.

Your statement is true, but only from the perpective of total numbers. Were those deaths due to gang violence? Were they in the commision of a crime? Making laws that make sure guns can not be legally purchased by violent criminals or the mentally ill is not the issue for me. Keeping them, even assault weapons, out of the hands of law abiding citizens is my concern. People kill people, not guns. Bad safety practices and poor judgement kill people. The fact is as long as criminals steal guns and sell them on the street, the only people affected by any new laws are those that abide by them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Surely a better balance of ownership and control can be achieved that will save lives and still allow individuals the ability to defend themselves.
I agree.

Last edited by MrQ1701 : 04-20-2008 at 01:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:12 PM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Ok. I can see how i screwwed up my first staement regarding assault weapons. I just meant armed criminals would be in for a bad time if they broke in to my home while i was there. I didn't mean to imply I would use an assault weapon, athough I could if i owned one. Sorry for the confusion.

Last edited by MrQ1701 : 04-20-2008 at 05:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:13 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.