Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look

[SpencerH]

I've gotten off track. I should restate this. Spencer's position is ridiculous to me because I don't think he or essentially any other advocate of gun ownership actually desires a solution that involves a reduction in the number of guns owned by criminals. They believe too heavily that any form of gun control involves taking guns away from law-abiding citizens and as such are blind to the idea that gun control can be a good thing. I don't believe that most gun control advocates would jump on board a magic wand solution that got rid of all guns, because what most gun advocates really want is just that - guns.

So now you're argument is that you can read my mind! Wow, liberal logic in action.

[Zkribbler]

When the citizenry are well armed, they are much safer from both the criminal element and the tyranny of government.

...because, when the government rolls an Abrams tank down my street, I can take it on with my .22 caliber rifle.

[Wezil]

We lost the fight against the tyranny of government a long time ago.

[Lorizael]

So now you're argument is that you can read my mind! Wow, liberal logic in action.

*your

No. This is clearly just an opinion of mine, and I can't read your mind. But why haven't pro-gun organizations embraced the idea of reducing the number of firearms available to criminals? Surely that would be a good idea. And surely, even if you can't come up with a solution, the millions of other people out there that make up the pro-gun population could. But it hasn't been done. Why not?

[SlowwHand]

...because, when the government rolls an Abrams tank down my street, I can take it on with my .22 caliber rifle.

A .223 isn't a whole lot different.

[bc1871]

...because, when the government rolls an Abrams tank down my street, I can take it on with my .22 caliber rifle.

That is why, the citizenry should have the same right to own anti-armor weapons etc.

The government should NEVER be the sole purveyor of force.

[Lorizael]

That is why, the citizenry should have the same right to own anti-armor weapons etc.

And SDI as well, I presume?

[Ben Kenobi]

I've gotten off track. I should restate this. Spencer's position is ridiculous to me because I don't think he or essentially any other advocate of gun ownership actually desires a solution that involves a reduction in the number of guns owned by criminals.

I'm an advocate of gun ownership even though I do not want to own one myself. I think that even though it's my personal choice and decision not to carry that people should be able to arm themselves if they choose to do so.

That being said, I support licensing requirements. I would love it if the 'criminal element' could be deprived of guns, but that's not going to happen, because they simply ignore and work outside the law. Therefore, I think it's a deterrent to crime, to know that you are substantially likely to get shot and/or killed in the commission of a crime.

They believe too heavily that any form of gun control involves taking guns away from law-abiding citizens and as such are blind to the idea that gun control can be a good thing.

You are blind to the concept that guns can be a deterrent to crime when owned by a law-abiding citizen.

I don't believe that most gun control advocates would jump on board a magic wand solution that got rid of all guns, because what most gun advocates really want is just that - guns.

I would jump on board, but then I'm a conservative and I'm a realist. Magic wands simply don't exist, so we go to the next best thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

why haven't pro-gun organizations embraced the idea of reducing the number of firearms available to criminals

Because gun control seeks to make gun ownership a crime. We have a massive, billion dollar boondoggle up here that forces everyone to register their guns. The only people who are affected by this are the law-abiding citizens. Of course, the criminals are perfectly able to get their hands on and use guns to their heart's content. What use is the registry except to make criminals of those who choose to own guns?

[BlackCat]

Finland, a relatively gun loving country, is right smack in the middle.

Yeah, but the finns are so pissed of late killings so they are cutting down on this idiocy.

If I'm not wrong, then there are guns that only one person can fire - make that obligatory for new guns. After a couple of decades, the bad guys doesn't have any guns and a general outlaw of guns can start

[SpencerH]

*your

No. This is clearly just an opinion of mine, and I can't read your mind. But why haven't pro-gun organizations embraced the idea of reducing the number of firearms available to criminals? Surely that would be a good idea. And surely, even if you can't come up with a solution, the millions of other people out there that make up the pro-gun population could. But it hasn't been done. Why not?

So what idea from the anti-gun lobby will reduce the number of firearms available to criminals? The keyword here is "criminals", almost by definition these are people who will not care what stupid myopic laws are enacted. Its time to leave the philosophical world and enter the real one.

BTW: I'm not a gun owner. I'm a 240 lb (ex para) gorilla. I dont need a gun to defend myself. You need guns to protect yourselves from people like me.

Elvis has left the building. This is too inane for (further) words.

[SlowwHand]

I have potentially heart breaking news for you, Spencer. I don't care one bit about your 240 pound (ex para) gorillamanship. You come into my place and you're a dead man.
You're right, criminals don't care about dumbass laws. It's the same as a lock. Locks keep basically innocent people from making a stupid mistake. It won't do anything about a determined career criminal.

Assaults are way down thanks to concealed carry laws. The push now is for open carry.

[DaShi]

I know that I'd be assaulting everyone if I didn't suspect they had a gun. Now I just pick 'em off from a distance.

[SlowwHand]

That's not robbery, that's sniper.

[DaShi]

I rob them later. Besides, it's better to shoot first. They might have a gun!!!