Gun laws/rights

[erikwells]

I had previously thought along the same lines as a lot of our politicans regarding gun control thinking "who needs a gun like that for hunting". I changed my mind after discussing the topic with a couple of hunting friends and they pointed out that our right to bear arms is in the constitution to keep a balance should a corrupt government or dictatorship take hold of our country. The I thought "what are teh odds and that will never happen". I guess my memory of history needs to be refreshed. I was reading an interesting article on MSN this morning and found a couple of quotes from the article that made me further agree with my friends. No soapbox or political agenda to be had on my account only wanted to share with some of you a few things that really changed my mind. The article is called "Germany marks the 80th anniversary of Hitler's rise". Below is the quote that made me think about our liberty and rights as Americans and our constitution.

"About a month after being appointed chancellor, Hitler used the torching of the Reichstag parliament building — blamed on a Dutch communist — to strengthen his grip on power. He suspended civil liberties and cracked down on opposition parties, paving the way for the police state."

"The fact that Hitler was able to destroy German democracy in only six months serves as a warning today of what can happen if the public is apathetic, Merkel said."

Thanks and God bless America,

Erik

[tencountff]

HuRump HuRump

[nofishfisherman]

There is a reason we have a well established system of checks and balances in place to limit the power of any one part of government. The President isn't as powerful as he may appear to be, he can't do much without the other 535 members of congress.

Additionally if the US government went as far as being the next Nazi regime what good would a few AR-15's be to us? If the government could somehow convince our army of volunteers to take up arms against their own country, their own homes, and their own families, what good would a few semi auto weapons do against the US military? If you truly want protection against the military we need to legalize MUCH larger weapons.

[thatoneguy]

The President isn't as powerful as he may appear to be, he can't do much without the other 535 members of congress.

[snoozebutton]

To thatoneguy.

[erikwells]

I guess my rationale for my post was to share with all of you the complexity of the issue and it's ok to change your mind. I'm a little emberrassed as a U.S. citizen and not just a sportsman that I had never put more thought into this issue even with all of the media attention. I'm certainly not qualified to politic on which side of the issue is right. I feel as though a lot of our politicians have oversimplified the issue by standing on the soapbox thumping their chests that gun control is the reason we have these mass shooting tragedies. Also coupled with the reasoning that we do not need certain weapons because there is not a practical hunting application for a fully automatic weapons. However ignoring the reason the right to bear arms was put in our constitution in the first place. I'm just saying look at the issue with eye wide open rather than how does this effect me like I was doing. Thanks for all of the responses from those of you that have taken more time to be informed than I.

[nofishfisherman]

Very good point about looking at the issue with an open mind. Not many people do that on any hot issue. Most just allign themselves with whatever their typical political party alligence tells them to do. I may not agree with what your final opinion is on the topic but I do appreciate that you took an honest look at both sides and made an informed decision that makes sense to you. I wish more people would do that, even if it means I don't agree with them. I can respect a thoughtful opinion even if I don't share it.

[lawdog]

Very good point about looking at the issue with an open mind. Not many people do that on any hot issue. Most just allign themselves with whatever their typical political party alligence tells them to do. I may not agree with what your final opinion is on the topic but I do appreciate that you took an honest look at both sides and made an informed decision that makes sense to you. I wish more people would do that, even if it means I don't agree with them. I can respect a thoughtful opinion even if I don't share it.

Says the guy who's always here to defend Obama first, everywhere.

Here is the simple fallacy of gun control laws that really makes the whole conversation so illogical. Criminals, by definition, do not follow laws. Passing gun laws therefore only effects law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens do not undertake "mass killings" as the political motor mouths like to talk about. Ergo, these laws do nothing to make anyone safer!

Think they work?

Columbine? During the first assault weapons ban...

Aurora, Co and Sandyhook? Gun free zones each of them...

These are unthinkable tragedies and heinous actions by deranged people. The implement they choose to undertake those actions is not what should be blamed.

Timothy McVeigh one the of worst psychopathic losers in history killed 170 people including just under 20 kids without a gun at all. The deadliest school massacre in history, like McVeigh, was done with a bomb. FACTS people. Try them out.

Oh and if you think citizen armaments don't dissuade government occupations of our country (either from outside or from within), study a little about why the Emporor of Japan refused to invade America, instead choosing to just bomb Pearl... Here is a quote attributed to one of his top admirals, Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto - “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Now, realistically, that was only one concern as we had a far mighty army anyway, but the fact that we are an armed citizenry has not been lost on our enemies.

Think about the world wars, have they ever been fought here? Has onyone tried to invade mainland USA? They'd be crushed... Gorilla wars amongst citizens are tough to win, look at Afghanistan. You'd have to have massive air superiority and a "shock and awe" type campaign to make any headway and our own govt wont want to destroy itself to occupy us so the easiest way is to make us feeble peasant servants unable to stand up to tryanny. Never could happen? How about Ruby Ridge and Waco? They were pretty much about just that...

[nofishfisherman]

Says the guy who's always here to defend Obama first, everywhere.

I think you read far to much into my posts. I'm not even sure the last time I mention Obama in a post. And frankly you have absolutely no idea how much consideration I've given both sides of any issue. I have formulated my opinions based on a lot of factors and alot of consideration of both sides of the coin. Most of that thought process doesn't come out on these threads. You don't have to like my opinion but you can be assured that it was formulated thoughtfully and not based off spoon fed doctrine from one side or the other.

[harvey lee]

What part of ther Constitution shall we change next?

I voted for the silly-me we have in office now his first term and almost voted for the clown again but did not.

This fool is out of control and we have to hope we can somehow control him for 18 more months until the next election. Then, hopefully the Republicans can take control of the House and Senate and Obuma can hurt all of us no farther.

I have never spoken like this about 1 of our Presidents but this guy is out of control.

Gun control laws will NEVER stop anyhting other than maybe some citizen from owning a gun that he would like.

[Gordie]

HarveyLee is correct and if they would sit back and just look at his home town of Chicago for a what is going their and look past what what they hink they need to fix,They might understand that Gun control DOES NOT work.

[Musky Buck]

For me a big issue is releasing murderers. That Carver county guy that killed his mother that was stockpiling ak-47's etc. He shouldn't have the chance to stockpile anything, hard to believe a violent gun person released back to society would re-offend or plan to, tired of hearing he or she's a "repeat offender" every county in our state knows it's only a matter of time when people get out of jail before they see them again.

[countyline]

Now, realistically, that was only one concern as we had a far mighty army anyway,

Might want to brush up on history a little!

[simple1]

Additionally if the US government went as far as being the next Nazi regime what good would a few AR-15's be to us? If the government could somehow convince our army of volunteers to take up arms against their own country, their own homes, and their own families, what good would a few semi auto weapons do against the US military? If you truly want protection against the military we need to legalize MUCH larger weapons.

Not to be rude, but please look at Iraq and Afghanistan. And no way more than 60 to 70% of our military would attack its own citizens. Some would, but a lot of them would meld back into our society. We are a great country for a reason.

Simple1

[gopher_nation]

Gun laws keep guns out of law abiding citizens hands. Feinstein needs to spend more time trying to get California out of its massive economic problems. Of which, guns have nothing to do with.

[erikwells]

I'm ashamed I never spent more time really thinking this topic through until very recently. Many great points from many of you who have done your homework. Thanks for the education and thank you for keeping it civil here as I hate email bashing. I work in the technology industry and have no issues with confrontation and have always found it funny when someone takes a shot at me through email how the message changes when I show up in their cube in 5 minutes and ask them to help me understand their email. Never fails, it stops that day. Thanks agin to all of you for helping me further understand this issue. Erik

[amateurfishing]

I am not a gun owner but am trying to learn about the issue all the time.

Why cant we fulfill the constition and at the same time put a limit on it. What is wrong with the right to bear arms if it defines arms as nothing that is military grade? And why is it my understanding in what i read that gun owners think they have no responsibility in this as to what can and should be defined as legal and/or necessary? Why cannot there be a right to bear arms without magazine clips that hold enuff ammo to completely level a town at once? There should be a middle ground with the right to bear arms whithout the need or desire to anything military grade or 1,000's of rounds of ammo.

to those bashing our current commander in chief, he was voted in by the popular vote and is heading the work desired by the greatest portion of our population. If you dont like him you should highly recommend to the other party stop stalling things getting done in DC with this my way or the highway attitude (aka tea party) and find a concensus within the party of a decent leader, the fact that the party is not up to date on social issues and cant even get along with each other does not help itself. even hillary and barrack get along even though they disagree, reps cant get along with their own grandmothers

[jparrucci]

To the previous poster: The guns that are trying to banned are not "military grade" whatever that even means. The semi-automatic rifles are different than the military full auto or select fire weapons. The weapons "look" similar, but functional are way different. On the same subject, the military carries sidearms in some cases, including 1911 semi-auto pistol which I am sure many here own. It is "military grade" by your standards. Shall we ban that too? Before you spout off a partisan post, you should probably know what you are talking about.

[Musky Buck]

Your first paragraph is what the general public doesn't understand about gun owners and enthusiasts. Most feel it's the 1st step in some master plan even though hunting brings in 87 billion per year. We rarely or never hear from Remington, Browning, Ruger, etc. they just sit back with their collection plate grinning ear to ear, some sell pizza for a living they sell guns. Some have this wild fear hunting will end, I don't share that thought unless they want to bankrupt 10's of thousands of people, then you'd have a full scale riot and civil war in the country, they'll avoid that. The issue is really law abiding citizens should be able to buy whatever gun they want and how ever much ammo they want. Penalties should be harsh for gun crimes but they aren't. Criminals do not care before during or after. Trouble figuring out where I stand on this, all I can do really is think about how many crimes are committed in MN yearly with the guns/clips they intend to ban, well I can't think of any so why aren't we pushing the mental illness piece of this to the top especially with males, when we say he's a wacko, he's nuts, he's out of his mind yet isn't in a creepy way, the people that stop finding value in their life are the ones I'm most concerned with, mental illness needs to get off the back burner and put on the front, and it needs to stay there until there's a plan in place that will make us all safer, and really them too, in all 50 states.

[amateurfishing]

To the previous poster: The guns that are trying to banned are not "military grade" whatever that even means. The semi-automatic rifles are different than the military full auto or select fire weapons. The weapons "look" similar, but functional are way different. On the same subject, the military carries sidearms in some cases, including 1911 semi-auto pistol which I am sure many here own. It is "military grade" by your standards. Shall we ban that too? Before you spout off a partisan post, you should probably know what you are talking about.

I openly claim i do not know much about subject and its tools. I also have thoughts and ideas and openly claim I am all about learning more bout the subject. To call me clueless in your short memo may be somewhat on target but also states your ignorance. At least i am clearly open minded and am willing to listen to others where it is obvious where you stand.

[amateurfishing]

If anyone out there thinks this is some part of a master plan to totally remove firearms from the public then would recommend them taking a step back and rethinking the subject.

When our constitution was made was there:

1. Automatic weapons?

2. Internet where ppl could buy what they want when they want at a moments notice?

2. Were recrational guns made to look like military weapons? (i understand military weapons could have been used for personal use though)

Yes i believe the criminals get off too easy

Yes i believe the value of human life has been lost in society

Yes i believe we need more mental health help in schools

Yes i believe out litigious and medical societies try and find a reason, explanatino, & anwer for everything that usually results in nothing being accomplished.

.....but as a gun owner if you have bought XX number of guns and was limited to the amount of ammo you could legally have at one time per gun (similiar to special limits with fishing), dont you think that would help alot? the scary part is of all the ppl that want to "stockpile" their weapons and ammo like fort knox just for the heck of it. if there are ammo limits, then there is only so much you could do with one gun at one time, right, if someone sees a person carrying more than 1 gun at time in a public enviroment there would obviously be questions to be asked. much easier to stop than 1 semi auto whatever with hundreds of rounds in pockets, right?

[Eric Wettschreck]

I am not a gun owner but am trying to learn about the issue all the time.

What is wrong with the right to bear arms if it defines arms as nothing that is military grade? And why is it my understanding in what i read that gun owners think they have no responsibility in this as to what can and should be defined as legal and/or necessary? Why cannot there be a right to bear arms without magazine clips that hold enuff ammo to completely level a town at once?

I get the fact that you're trying to understand things. So, I'll ask you the question....Who am I to tell you what is necessary, who are you to tell me what is necessary, and who is the government to tell me what is necessary? One of the bigger problems with the introduced legislation is, in my opinion, there isn't a problem with 30 round mags. If there isn't a problem with something, why outlaw it? There isn't a problem with rifles with thumb holes in the stock (actually, they're more accurate) so why outlaw them? If things that arn't necessary in my mind, or your mind, or my neighbors mind were outlawed we wouldn't have much left.

When any new legislation is introduced, no matter what the topic, the legislature first has to define "The goal" of the legislation, and the steps needed to get there. i.e.- what are you trying to accomplish? If you read the actual legislation you'll see what the goal is. And this is the only thing we can do as none of my reps support the current legislation and the ones who introduced it say it's for "Public Safety." I raise an eyebrow on that one. Look at the penalties, if the legislation passes, of owning a a mag that holds 12 rounds. It's a felony. Drunk driving isn't even a felony so is the goal really public safety? No, it's to get rid of guns as once you're a felon you can't have a gun.

You said yourself in a previous post you don't own or shoot guns. Hey, that's cool. The problem is that as a non-gun owner you're trying to decide what gun owners should be allowed to own. The same holds true for the reps that introduced the current legislation, no offense, but they're clueless on the topic.

Your statement that gun owners think they have no responsibility in this couldn't be farther from the truth. The law abiding gun owner takes firearms possession as a huge responsibility. This is another problem with the legislation that's been introduced, it does nothing to get guns out of the hands of the criminals and does everything to get guns out of the hands of the law abiding firearm owner.

I, for one, appreciate you trying to learn more about the topic.

[picksbigwagon]

great post Eric, remember people that forum policy doesn't allow for name calling and it will not be tolerated in this or any forum here at HSO

[jparrucci]

Making partisan remarks about a subject you know nothing about is far from open minded. You blurted out a bunch of obviously ill conceived thought and then followed it up with a mindless partisan rant. Sorry, but I am obligated to call you out on this. If you have questions and want some explanations, I am sure myself and others all all ears and are more than willing to help. But your original post got the exact response it deserved. If I wasn't typing on a cell phone and had to.stick to the forum guidelines, you would have gotten a much more harsh response.

[Eric Wettschreck]

When our constitution was made was there:

1. Automatic weapons?

2. Internet where ppl could buy what they want when they want at a moments notice?

2. Were recrational guns made to look like military weapons? (i understand military weapons could have been used for personal use though)quote]

1. No, they had muskets, cannons, swords, and hand to hand combat.

2. No

3. Some were.

Now I'll ask, when the Constitution was drafted, was there;

1. Mauser 7.62 with 12 round clip? This would be one of the outlawed guns that I use for hunting and target shooting.

2. CNN, Star Tribune, ST Paul Pioneer Press, MSNBC, Fox news, etc? The first ammendment comes to mind with this one.

3. Does it matter what a rifle looks like?

In the end, does it really matter if your 3 examples were in play in 1791 when the 2nd ammendment was adopted?