Thread: The Guardian Plan

Originally Posted by KimPossible

Can i ask what people are defining as an assault rifle?

And are people aware that there are hunting rifles that are semi-automatic? My husband has one. And it makes a big difference when hunting.

I am not against tighter gun control and I would even consider a ban on certain types of weapons. But I think we should get more specific.

ETA: And this isn't a counterpoint to anyone's argument....I am bringing the question up because they are common points when discussing the issue. We should be specific about what we are banning and some of these terms are not universally defined. (And they were two separate questions, not one addressing the same thing)

Yes, I think that semi automatic hunting rifles are unnecessary. May it make killing the deer easier? Sure. But lets face it, your family is not going to starve if he doesn't get that deer this year. This is not life or death survival hunting, this is sport hunting, and I would prefer to see those weapons off of the market and hunters refine their skills against defenseless animals. Around here bow hunting is hugely popular. I recently went clay pigeon shooting with a non automatic rifle ~ you had to reload it every two shots. A massacre the likes of columbine or newtown would be impossible with a bow or a rifle like I was shooting.

I also admit to not being IN ANY WAY any sort of expert on weapons. This is by choice, my family does not own guns and we choose a more peaceful, trusting life. We find that way of life more Christian. All I know is that there is no reason for civilians to be wearing full body armor. There is no reasons for a civilian to own a gun capable of firing hundreds of bullets in minutes. I want America to be as intelligent and as safe as other countries in this regard. I just KNOW we are capable of it! I don't know why other people don't have as much faith in our great country.

Originally Posted by Rivergallery

1- You assume he wouldn't have gotten them another way. (course it was dumb on her part, but I would not blame her for his choice)
2- If you cc you are trained.. And I do think we should be able to choose.
3- Not everyone is ok with just taking off our shoes.. did you forget the HUGE stink people threw, are still throwing about airport security? OF course they argued they had the right to wear shoes... But that wasn't an amendment was it?
4- It is the 2nd amendment.. I didn't write it. Sorry you have a problem with it. And again it isn't an either or question.. Who isn't questioning the government? BOTH sides of every issue I see doing that!

You seem to be forgeting how the government works.

Congress can pass laws that are clearly unconstitutional. President can sign them. The people can challenge them. SCOTUS decides the outcome. However, SCOTUS doesn't have to hear a case.

DOMA was signed on Sept. 21, 1996. Clearly it violates Art. 4 section 1. It has taken 16 years for SCOTUS to agree to hear a case challenging DOMA.

Thus, the gov't could pass a law restricting the sale and manufature of firearms so those available are at a bare minimum.

I didn't write the 2nd amendment. And I respect people's rights to own certain guns. I also respect the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 14th, and the 24th amendments which are trampled on "in the name of puplic safety" or "to protect my relgious beliefs but not yours, or to prevent non-existent "threats" to the outcome of elections.

Originally Posted by Potter75

Yes, I think that semi automatic hunting rifles are unnecessary. May it make killing the deer easier? Sure. But lets face it, your family is not going to starve if he doesn't get that deer this year. This is not life or death survival hunting, this is sport hunting, and I would prefer to see those weapons off of the market and hunters refine their skills against defenseless animals. Around here bow hunting is hugely popular. I recently went clay pigeon shooting with a non automatic rifle ~ you had to reload it every two shots. A massacre the likes of columbine or newtown would be impossible with a bow or a rifle like I was shooting.

Its not just sport hunting Melissa, it changes our diet immensely. We buy almost no meat at the grocery store. Pretty much just fish. We raise our own chickens, and we use venison instead of ground beef. The years we don't get a deer? They suck, Melissa honestly. And no we don't always get a deer, even with the semi-automatics. The one we got this year? it was not the first shot that took the deer, it was the second one, and my family is better off for it.

Sure you can say none of that is worth these kids lives but before we go down that road I'd like you to show much how much of a threat a semi-automatic hunting rifle has historically been in these situations that trigger us to take on reforming gun control. I don't support a complete ban on semi-automatic guns for this reason.

Eating venison is a conscious decision on our part for our family diet and health. Its not just a game for fun. And it also brings my kids closer to their meat sources and how we get it which i think is an extremely valuable lesson in teaching them how to eat healthy. I did not grow up in a serious hunting family, i married into one. I sometimes get the feeling that when non-hunting families hear this stuff many of them just roll their eyes and think things like "They just say its that important to them so they can justify it"

I also admit to not being IN ANY WAY any sort of expert on weapons. This is by choice, my family does not own guns and we choose a more peaceful, trusting life. We find that way of life more Christian. All I know is that there is no reason for civilians to be wearing full body armor. There is no reasons for a civilian to own a gun capable of firing hundreds of bullets in minutes. I want America to be as intelligent and as safe as other countries in this regard. I just KNOW we are capable of it! I don't know why other people don't have as much faith in our great country.

I pretty much agree with all of this except that we own guns, for non-violent purposes (against humans that is) and that i don't agree that semi-automatic hunting rifles need to be included in any suggested ban. Do all these other countries that are safer have bans on these types of weapons? I don't know the answer to that question personally.

I feel that we are in the throws of knee-jerk reactions at the moment, which is natural given the type of tragedy. But I think people who are proponents of tighter gun laws need to make the effort to be knowledgeable before they start making blanket claims.

ETA: and if numbers showed that the ONLY way that we could reduce the amount of these problems would be by banning those types of guns too, then i would go along with it even if i was not happy about it. But its important enough to my family that i want the proof that its necessary first.

Originally Posted by KimPossible

Sure you can say none of that is worth these kids lives but before we go down that road I'd like you to show much how much of a threat a semi-automatic hunting rifle has historically been in these situations that trigger us to take on reforming gun control. .

In the case of the gun that the Newton killer used Hunting accounted for 22.8 percent of sales.

(from here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us...town.html?_r=0)

I don't just want assault rifles banned. I want it to go wayyyy farther than that. But again, I'm not an expert on this stuff, and I want DEEP background checks, mental health checks, waiting periods, all sorts of things, not just bans. As to the other countries, yes, from what I have read on the matter, they do.

Kim, eta : http://www.takepart.com/photos/10-co...cides-per-year

I understand that not all of you believe an unborn baby is just as much a real live baby and one that was already born. Would you really go up to a woman that has had a miscarriage and say your loss was not real because you were not far enough along or that your baby had not been born yet?

I am not saying the pain is equal, I am saying either the argument holds water, or it doesn't. That you can not use "That they would do it anyway it a back ally" as an excuses for it being legal, when you think that same excuse is crazy for banning guns.

I do not own a gun. I do not have a desire to own a gun, but I believe in the right to own a gun. I am also not arguing banning assault weapons, but banning all guns.

Originally Posted by Potter75

In the case of the gun that the Newton killer used Hunting accounted for 22.8 percent of sales.

(from here http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/us...town.html?_r=0)

Thats not what i mean. You are taking a specific gun, that the majority of the time is not purchased for hunting. I want to know about guns that are primarily purchased as hunting rifles. Because a huge, and i mean huge amount of them are semi-automatic.

I don't just want assault rifles banned. I want it to go wayyyy farther than that. But again, I'm not an expert on this stuff, and I want DEEP background checks, mental health checks, waiting periods, all sorts of things, not just bans. As to the other countries, yes, from what I have read on the matter, they do.

Can you give me specifics on these countries and their laws? I tried to find information about the Australian ban and could not find details, even on their federal government website...which is really annoying. All that other stuff that you want. I'm all for it.

Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers

I understand that not all of you believe an unborn baby is just as much a real live baby and one that was already born. Would you really go up to a woman that has had a miscarriage and say your loss was not real because you were not far enough along or that your baby had not been born yet?

I am not saying the pain is equal, I am saying either the argument holds water, or it doesn't. That you can not use "That they would do it anyway it a back ally" as an excuses for it being legal, when you think that same excuse is crazy for banning guns.
.

No, but if a women tried to tell me her loss was THE SAME I would tell her that I absolutely disagreed with her and that that viewpoint was very hurtful to women who had experienced the loss of a living child.

I still don't understand your second bolded at all. I don't use the excuse "they would do it in an alley". I believe that women have a right to bodily autonomy. I believe that children and humans have a right to bodily autonomy as well, i.e the right to not be riddled with bullets. What on earth is contradictory about that to you.

Again, you trying to link this tragedy to abortion is hurtful and, in my opinion, sinful.

The pain of losing a wanted pregnancy is certainly real. But I don't think you can compare losing a pregnancy to losing a born child, and I certainly don't think you can compare choosing to end a pregnancy over losing a born child. It's just a way to try to change the conversation back to a certain set of Conservative approved talking points.

From reading the link provided, it seems that some countries completely ban semi-automatics, others don't and some are in between, making exceptions for hunting.

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

If you make carrying a gun a requirement for teachers, you are going to attract a different type of person, and that may not be the type of person you want teaching kids. Not because they are bad people, but because they have a different temperment. He also said that the amount of training and maintenance that you would need to be able to consistently react under pressure and hit moving targets would be similar to that of a police officer, and you would need to think about paying teachers for that extra training and maintenance, as well as how much time would be spent gaining and maintaining those skills vs gaining and maintaining the skills they use for teaching. He also said that he thinks that if a teacher is trying to hit a moving target (like an attacker) and hits a student instead, that is worse in his opinion, because the teachers are responsible for the kids, and having a teacher hurt one (albeit unintentionally) is worse. Finally, I asked him if he would want to carry a gun himself. He says no.

So, some insight from a guy who became a teacher in Littleton in a post-Columbine world. Possibly skewed because, like me, he is not "a gun person."

Who said anything about making it a requirement? It has been said over and over only those teachers who WANT to participate. Even the program in the original article I posted these teachers are doing it VOLUNTARILY, got their CCL on their own time and it said they are paid a small stipend. Not sure how much that is but I would guess not a large amount. No one said arm EVERY teacher. You are right every teacher wouldn't be a good fit for a program like this. But there are teachers RIGHT NOW who do have the temperament needed and possibly already even have a CC license that aren't allowed to take the guns they already possess to school to protect their students.