I mean even if the crime is a felony!


Wrong, wrong, wrong! Your not reading my posts are you! I've state more than one -Misdemeanor Domestic Violence=your guns and gun rights are gone!

http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=...icp=1&.intl=us

I own mostly antique rifles and one pistol. Don't feel the need to carry and don't even think of my guns as defensive weapons... just fun to look at and shoot occasionally.

I'm definitely supportive of gun rights. I think we need to do everything possible to keep guns out of the hands of kids, though.

Agreed

Yeah, but as per norm, the laws in california are much stricter. Here, you can just go buy one. I didn't even have to wait, got my handgun over the counter.

A couple common arguments:
1. When the right to bear arms was established, arms were rifles where you had to load black powder carried in bags and stuff it. There were also no cars.
2. The problem with taking away guns is that law abiding citizens will get their guns taken away, while criminals will retain guns.

Thoughts?

Both true.

The threat of having to defend oneself against ones government was a much more real possibility back then, as well.

This is cool! The bad guys lose!

:happydance:

Peronally I own two shotguns because I enjoy shooting. I plan on purchasing a handgun at some point in time. 1) Because of the reason stated in first sentence. 2) I would rather have one and not need it, than need one and not have it. I dont think we need the firearms for the same reason that the laws were originally made for, but I dont think that because the situation has changed we should just get rid of firearms.

Nothing has really changed in this regard, imho. First off, semi-automatic arms were known to the authors of the bill of rights, even though they weren't in use at the time. There are letters where they discuss advancements in arms, including the first "gatling-gun" type devices.

Secondarily, from a "defend yourself from tyranny/invasion" standpoint, one can make the argument that if you're going to defend yourself from government tyranny and/or foreign invasion, then the moving standard should be "whatever small arms the military uses at any given time". This brings us around to:

It's still a real possibility even now. Look at the kind of resistance fighters in the urban areas of Afghanistan and Iraq (or for that matter, Vietnam) put up against our invasion/occupation. These are, for the most part, dirt poor people using decades-old AK-47's that are barely even functional anymore, and home-made bombs. A citizenry in the US, armed with what's commonly available at US gunshows, and easily repel even our own military in an urban tyranny/invasion scenario for quite a while. Long enough and hard enough to make them rethink things, in any case.

I highly doubt we will have to fight off our own military any time in the near or distant future. :D

Plus, the only reason the resistance is working over there is because we screwed up in the first place and are trying to fight an unconventional war in a conventional manner. But that's an entirely different discussion.

I did read your posts, I really don't consider the Lautenberg thing a major point. Are you really defending the idea that people convicted of domestic violence should be purchasing firearms legally?

I'm (obviously) all for relaxing some of the current gun laws on the book (such as the 1968 and 1986 ammendments to the National Firearms Act), and for getting more of the restrictive states/cities to start allowing handgun ownership and carry, but you have to pick your battles. Getting violent felons and domestic abusers their gun rights back isn't one that could really be won, regardless of whether one thinks it's the right thing to do.

Well, the reason we don't decisively win like you'd expect when we try to occupy foreign cities basically comes down to not wanting to slaughter the masses.

Obviously, if it were considered morally ok by everyone involved (the media, our own government, our soldiers, etc), we could easily just annihilate an Iraqi city and kill virtually everyone in it and declare victory. We certainly have the weaponry for it. But when every little civilian casualty causes an uproar, you have to tip-toe around and try to coerce the population into submission without killing them all. *That's* a hard battle to win. If the military were ever deployed against Americans domestically, they'd be in the same scenario.

As for the likelihood, that's really not even important to me. I don't expect the military to ever seize control of the public in the US. But I also think that the fact that the populace here is armed, which would make such an endeavor much more costly and difficult for the military, is an important part of the checks and balances that keep this country free from tyranny. It makes sure that the thought doesn't cross someone's mind down the road, under different circumstances.

Bottom line is there are places we need to be and places we don't.

Eventually our nation will learn from the mistakes it makes... eventually. Probably several generations down the road... lol.

Thank you to everyone that has participated in this thread. The fun thing about this is I'm writing a 16 page research paper that originally had the topic of the controversy behind Drug testing for employment. I Have have since changed topics and have gotten lots of insight into different views that some people have regarding firearm ownership.

While we may not all agree its nice that most people have been kept a civil discourse.

And Thank you again to Semtex for his allowing the beginning of this dialog to happen in his thread.