the beauty of Gun ownership (2nd amendment - Page 9 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #81 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 08:10 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear
We do have the same kinds of arms that were available then. Simple handguns and one click at a time rifles and shotguns. They look much different, they load different but they are still the same "side arms". And their function in society has really not changed. Back in the 1770s there were trading days and the most traded item was guns. Guys had several if they could afford them [no 12 car garages at that time].

Most of my friends are on the Left on most issues and seem somewhat flummoxed that I don't follow lockstep. I fully understand the positions. I also know that there is a tremendous amount of disinformation that is stirred about, both by the NRA [which I think is very overreaching] and the Brady gang [which I think reaches just as far the other way].

If, as example you took ALL the weapons that the Brady folks think are REALLY BAD and the NRA thinks you ABSOLUTELY NEED to go hunting [the AK-47 clones, AR-15/M-16, UZI/Mac9 and clones] and melted them today, you MIGHT lose 1-2% of all firearms. Maybe. Now you are down to Rifles [hunting, target, other] Shotguns [Hunting, Street Sweepers, other] and handguns [pistols and revolvers].

Of all the remaining guns, there is Federal paperwork on over 80% of those guns as they were bought at normal gunshops. This is, in essence the registered gun control laws that are wanted by many. The other 20% are sold either private or at gunshows [dealers at gunshows STILL have to do the forms and waiting periods etc]. There are already possession and carry laws that cover every state, Federal Laws that address modifying weapons, automatic weapons and stolen weapons. We even have laws about using firearms in a crime!

So, what else is necessary? What measures should be taken so that the .1% of gun owners are addressed without further overregulating the already law abiding 99.9%? And would further laws actually increase compliance on that .1%?
Either the words in the second ammendment had a specific meaning then, and a context, or they don't. I believe they had a specific meaning and the context was of a smaller government and no standing army, where the citizens would be called up to be the first responders to a threat. And the arms they would bring to bear were the same arms they used to hunt with, or in some areas, defend themselves against the Indians they pissed off when they stole their land. But, in any case the inventory of arms the citizens were expected to bring to their militia was stuff designed and built specifically for their use, in times of general peace.

In the era when the US government grew to the point where they funded a standing army, and began to develop their war fighting armnament of the types that did not rely on technology, manufacturing plants or even materials used for the range of domestically used arms, meaning the guns you described earlier, the context began to become invalid. For example, no one got drafted to serve in WWII era or later and was asked to bring their rifle or sidearm from home with them. Yet, weapons technology developed for these specific military uses is now claimed to be included in the "right to bear arms." If that is a line of logic that sells, so must be the logic that American citizens, under the second ammendment have the right to bear any and all arms available to the military, if they can afford them, including nukes and missiles.

I think the ammendment needs to be rewritten to reflect changes in the nation's government, population and the state of technology. As written the words are too easily twisted to work up regular Americans to support unreasonable positions on the subject of controlling weapons by those with an incentive. An open debate with reasoned result is all I look for, not this perpetual misrepresentation of the second ammendment's intent to justify the uncontrolled manufacture and distribution of weapons to the general public.

As for controlling the last 0.1%, that needs to be a role the weapons manufacturers are saddled with that includes liability for loss of inventory that gets into the hands of the evil 0.1%. If there is nothing to gain and only a big liability, the availability of that stuff will diminish quickly.

Jim

Last edited by JimSmith; 09-21-2007 at 08:12 AM.
JimSmith is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #82 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 08:21 AM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1761 Post(s)
shoot the fuckers
Shane is offline  
post #83 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 08:28 AM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Fast55's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2004
Vehicle: 2006 E55, 2005 SLK55, a few others
Location: Ventura County USA
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith
Either the words in the second ammendment had a specific meaning then, and a context, or they don't. I believe they had a specific meaning and the context was of a smaller government and no standing army, where the citizens would be called up to be the first responders to a threat. And the arms they would bring to bear were the same arms they used to hunt with, or in some areas, defend themselves against the Indians they pissed off when they stole their land. But, in any case the inventory of arms the citizens were expected to bring to their militia was stuff designed and built specifically for their use, in times of general peace.

In the era when the US government grew to the point where they funded a standing army, and began to develop their war fighting armnament of the types that did not rely on technology, manufacturing plants or even materials used for the range of domestically used arms, meaning the guns you described earlier, the context began to become invalid. For example, no one got drafted to serve in WWII era or later and was asked to bring their rifle or sidearm from home with them. Yet, weapons technology developed for these specific military uses is now claimed to be included in the "right to bear arms." If that is a line of logic that sells, so must be the logic that American citizens, under the second ammendment have the right to bear any and all arms available to the military, if they can afford them, including nukes and missiles.

I think the ammendment needs to be rewritten to reflect changes in the nation's government, population and the state of technology. As written the words are too easily twisted to work up regular Americans to support unreasonable positions on the subject of controlling weapons by those with an incentive. An open debate with reasoned result is all I look for, not this perpetual misrepresentation of the second ammendment's intent to justify the uncontrolled manufacture and distribution of weapons to the general public.

As for controlling the last 0.1%, that needs to be a role the weapons manufacturers are saddled with that includes liability for loss of inventory that gets into the hands of the evil 0.1%. If there is nothing to gain and only a big liability, the availability of that stuff will diminish quickly.

Jim
I somewhat agree with you on this Jim, but it's not a "loss of inventory" from the mfgs. that is arming the criminals. It's theft. Why should anyone be held liable for the misuse of a firearm that is stolen from them? If someone steals your car (locked of course) and kills somebody during a joyride should you be responsible? Should MB be held accountable if I drive my E55 recklessly and kill somebody in the process because they made a 500HP car that I don't "need" to own? Again, I think we have so far done a fairly reasonable job of drawing the line between full on military weapons and what we as citizens can own.
Fast55 is offline  
post #84 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 09:49 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Difflock's Avatar
 
Date registered: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1984 300GD "G" Wagen, and 1998 Steyr Puch 290GD "G" Van & a 1988 MB Trac 1000
Location: Co Antrim, Norn Ireland
Posts: 3,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to Difflock
No handguns in England Scotland or wales except for the police and Criminals
We here in dear old Norn Ireland are different
Because we had far more strict gun laws
We were allowed to keep our handguns and keep them at home in a gun cabinet of course.
But bear in mind that here even air rifles under 12 foot pounds are on a Firearms certificate as is each individual shotgun, though one is now allowed a one for one trade over the counter at a registered firearms dealer with the shotguns.
However every three years a complete fresh application, with justification, club membership and certified attendenance for each firearm, and ammunition purchased.
And two referees and about £100.00 each time.
More hassle than it is worth for many.
But some serious sniper type rifles over here now , completely legally -- if one shoots the discipline one can get the firearm.
And yes the only semiautos are pistols of any caliber and .22 rifles, no bigger. cheers
Difflock is offline  
post #85 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 01:10 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast55 View Post
I somewhat agree with you on this Jim, but it's not a "loss of inventory" from the mfgs. that is arming the criminals. It's theft. Why should anyone be held liable for the misuse of a firearm that is stolen from them? If someone steals your car (locked of course) and kills somebody during a joyride should you be responsible? Should MB be held accountable if I drive my E55 recklessly and kill somebody in the process because they made a 500HP car that I don't "need" to own? Again, I think we have so far done a fairly reasonable job of drawing the line between full on military weapons and what we as citizens can own.
Theft of your car, and the consequent damage caused by it is something your insurance company insures you against. If you leave the keys in the car and and invite the thief to take it, your insurance company might view their obligation in a different light.

Theft of weapons from individuals is not what is enabling the 0.1% of the bad guys to buy assault weapons and police killing, bullet proof jacket penetrating, rounds. It is theft from shipping companies and shipping docks and warehouses. All that can be made the manufacturers' problem. Just make him liable for ammunition usage that is stolen from his inventory until a legitimate new owner has accepted transfer of ownership and liability. The result will be fewer storage facilities, better shippers, and closer tabs on production. And higher prices, lower availability, and all the other things that make it harder for the 0.1% to get their hands on stuff they are not supposed to have.

By making people liable for the consequences that happen with their firearms, whether they are the manufacturers (first, and for all the stuff that is not intended for sale to the individual), or individuals will make no difference to the law abiding and careful manufacturers or individuals. They are not a source of weapons for the 0.1% bad guys. It will make the ones scoffing at the laws (manufacturers mainly) who profit from moving inventory illicitly. Whether it is insurance scams or or just tax write-offs. And the individuals who have guns stolen will have to learn to be better custodians of dangerous shit or give up gun ownership. If you have a weapon stolen, it should become a reason for the authorities to keep better tabs on you too.

Just throwing your hands up in the air and saying there is nothing that can be done is without principle or precedent when it has the potential to so adversely affects the lives of innocent people. It would be like suggesting trying to stop child molestation is just not practical because every time we arrest one, another pops up somewhere else.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #86 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 02:08 PM
BenzWorld Extremist
 
Fast55's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2004
Vehicle: 2006 E55, 2005 SLK55, a few others
Location: Ventura County USA
Posts: 986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I fail to see how a mfg. should liable for theft of their product once it has been transferred into the hands of a shipping company. Isn't the shipping company liable? Who are the mfgs. that move product illicitly? I'd be more than a little surprised to find a mfg. that falls into that category and if there are any, I'll bet they are already out of business. At least in Ca. you are already completely liable for what happens with a firearm registered to you if it isn't/wasn't stored legally, ie: locked up in an approved container or disable through some form of trigger/action locking device. I don't even begin to suggest that anyone shouldn't be liable when they don't follow the rules, just that we have plenty of rules now.
Fast55 is offline  
post #87 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 02:54 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digmenow View Post
I would ask "Why?" but you're too sharp to step into that snare.
I'm even sharp enough to step around it and let others step in it.

Which why to which of the two sentences?

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #88 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 02:56 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
FeelTheLove's Avatar
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Location: Planet Houston
Posts: 28,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
Yes, all cities have rich and poor neighborhoods but the point I was making is that Louisville has a very LARGE projects and low income area that is disproportional to many other cities of its size. These areas have very active drug selling gangs, not just groups of guys that wear the same colors.

So when you have a disproportionately large impoverished area of a city, gun violence is much more likely than otherwise, it is just the law of averages. There are other cities in the US that have similar populations, but with a different socio-economic mix that have no where near the level of violence, gun or otherwise.

As for taking a single day's police report, written by the lowest co-op at the newspaper and trying to extrapolate violence trends is just not possible. Pulled a gun over a basketball? Maybe but I would bet drugs and/or alcohol were involved and odds are pretty good that there was prior history.
Of all the cities I regularly travel, Louisville is by far the one with the most impressive slums and the scariest. That area off the interstate (65?) just north of the university looks like a fucking hell hole. I feel safer in Chicago than I do there any day.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

-President Barack Obama, 1st Inaugural address
FeelTheLove is offline  
post #89 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 03:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
Either the words in the second ammendment had a specific meaning then, and a context, or they don't. I believe they had a specific meaning and the context was of a smaller government and no standing army, where the citizens would be called up to be the first responders to a threat. And the arms they would bring to bear were the same arms they used to hunt with, or in some areas, defend themselves against the Indians they pissed off when they stole their land. But, in any case the inventory of arms the citizens were expected to bring to their militia was stuff designed and built specifically for their use, in times of general peace.

In the era when the US government grew to the point where they funded a standing army, and began to develop their war fighting armnament of the types that did not rely on technology, manufacturing plants or even materials used for the range of domestically used arms, meaning the guns you described earlier, the context began to become invalid. For example, no one got drafted to serve in WWII era or later and was asked to bring their rifle or sidearm from home with them. Yet, weapons technology developed for these specific military uses is now claimed to be included in the "right to bear arms." If that is a line of logic that sells, so must be the logic that American citizens, under the second ammendment have the right to bear any and all arms available to the military, if they can afford them, including nukes and missiles.

I think the ammendment needs to be rewritten to reflect changes in the nation's government, population and the state of technology. As written the words are too easily twisted to work up regular Americans to support unreasonable positions on the subject of controlling weapons by those with an incentive. An open debate with reasoned result is all I look for, not this perpetual misrepresentation of the second ammendment's intent to justify the uncontrolled manufacture and distribution of weapons to the general public.

As for controlling the last 0.1%, that needs to be a role the weapons manufacturers are saddled with that includes liability for loss of inventory that gets into the hands of the evil 0.1%. If there is nothing to gain and only a big liability, the availability of that stuff will diminish quickly.

Jim
I agree with much of your first paragraph. It is odd that the folks that established the US Army in 1784, less than a decade after the Second Amendment was written didn't see that issue as relevant.

I understand that folks want reasoned debate with reasoned results. Unfortunately, that has all the appearance of asking for debate and results that does not include those who believe that the current Second Amendment is fine as written.

I tend not to agree with much of the NRA but I understand their position that if they concede pieces, there will continue to be requests for more pieces. It is why they hold the line.

Assault weapons are not the cause of the problems, Street Sweepers are not the cause of the problems. The problems are socio-economic and cultural and until those problems are fully addressed, the violence will exist, whether with guns or bats or knives or poison or bombs.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #90 of 175 (permalink) Old 09-21-2007, 03:20 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
Theft of your car, and the consequent damage caused by it is something your insurance company insures you against. If you leave the keys in the car and and invite the thief to take it, your insurance company might view their obligation in a different light.

Theft of weapons from individuals is not what is enabling the 0.1% of the bad guys to buy assault weapons and police killing, bullet proof jacket penetrating, rounds. It is theft from shipping companies and shipping docks and warehouses. All that can be made the manufacturers' problem. Just make him liable for ammunition usage that is stolen from his inventory until a legitimate new owner has accepted transfer of ownership and liability. The result will be fewer storage facilities, better shippers, and closer tabs on production. And higher prices, lower availability, and all the other things that make it harder for the 0.1% to get their hands on stuff they are not supposed to have.

By making people liable for the consequences that happen with their firearms, whether they are the manufacturers (first, and for all the stuff that is not intended for sale to the individual), or individuals will make no difference to the law abiding and careful manufacturers or individuals. They are not a source of weapons for the 0.1% bad guys. It will make the ones scoffing at the laws (manufacturers mainly) who profit from moving inventory illicitly. Whether it is insurance scams or or just tax write-offs. And the individuals who have guns stolen will have to learn to be better custodians of dangerous shit or give up gun ownership. If you have a weapon stolen, it should become a reason for the authorities to keep better tabs on you too.

Just throwing your hands up in the air and saying there is nothing that can be done is without principle or precedent when it has the potential to so adversely affects the lives of innocent people. It would be like suggesting trying to stop child molestation is just not practical because every time we arrest one, another pops up somewhere else.

Jim
No firearms manufacturers also manufactures ammunition. Browning and Winchester were the last and now they do so in marketing only.

There is NO throwing hands up in the air. Most of the folks that own firearms are adamant that strict enforcement of current laws, whether it is theft, use or possession by a felon will eliminate a considerable amount of the problem.

There is a tremendous amount of hyperbola on the Gun Control side of the argument and it is hard to cut through some of that to get to real hard facts. The "raging gun escalation" that some talk about is so isolated as to fall into a very small percentage of the .1%.

Anyone that dies is too many. Innocents that die are even more unfair but to broad brush the issue into what the Gun Control lobby has tried to make it is just as bad. It is very insulting to the 60Million very law abiding gun owners in this Country, most of whom are 100% behind stopping the violence just as much as those who don't own firearms.

I don't suggest removing all cars from the roads because over 43,000 people die annually because of them. I don't suggest that [as Fast55 pointed out] that Mercedes be held liable because I have 5 cars that go 165MPH should I wreck. The problem is socio-economic. PERIOD. That is what has to be fixed.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    5th Amendment Abolished...?? Qubes Off-Topic 111 07-24-2007 05:41 PM
    Blind Texas Gun Laws- Would you pickup a gun and hunt if you were blind? Jakarta Expat Off-Topic 7 12-13-2006 12:59 PM
    first amendment right? azimuth Off-Topic 37 05-29-2005 01:58 PM
    First Amendment No Big Deal, Students Say GeeS Off-Topic 21 02-02-2005 10:20 PM
    Just got my 2nd SLK32 or How replacing fog lamp bulb got me a free 2nd car! Rick G. R170 SLK-Class 21 12-11-2001 10:58 PM

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

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome