Fortunately, things are not made illegal on the basis of "yesman65 doesn't see a need for them".

The Clinton Gun Ban attempted to create a class of "very evil guns" that were somehow distinguishable from "still evil guns that it's OK to have", it was a dismal failure and allowed to lapse.

If you wish to keep your hunting rifles, you should at least read this.

Ok, I'll go with you that handguns can be better for protection in the home with training. On the streets I'm keeping my stance, oh, I never said we should ban handguns in the home anyways.

I forgot guns are the only way to defend yourself...

Sarcasm is a great way of retaliating isn't it, makes me look stupid by taking my words competely out of context (like how I somewhere pointed out that handguns should be outlawed in the home and rifles are fine in public). Good job, you argue like a tenth grader, grow up and present me facts or common sense.

Way to take my postion out of context...again, must take skill to do that.

By the way, since when did I have a phobia? I just said that some people with handguns scare me, the fact that I, or someone else, can get hurt or killed by irresposibility is scary. I am also scared that I can get killed by a drunk driver and I'm not against drinking or driving, just the two put together. It also doesn't stop me from driving on friday nights either. Stop making assumptions about people, it just makes you look intolerent.

I bet you feel all good about yourself from that rant? Too bad I don't have hoplophobia and too bad I'm not disarming you, just illegalizing concealed weapons, not your ability to possess one.

Funny, I also heard that the new police techniques and legalized abortion also lowers crime. It could also be social forces, but what does all this conclude? Statistics don't prove shit.


The thing is, if guns were harder to get I wouldn't mind the legalized concealed gun law, but guns are very easy to get and anyone can get ahold of them with little or no training. Notice how my opinion is swayed by training and not guns itselves.


This also give me a chance to rant about something else. I have a stance that neither pro-gun or anti-gun but since people on one extreme side thinks anyone who mentions banning guns on one situation is competely anti-gun on every issue which is very far from the truth. Stop splitting people into two groups (pro-gun vs. anti-gun, conservative vs. liberal, capitaist vs. communist, etc) becuase your assumption is going to be wrong a majority of the time if not every.

Well said! I was accused of hoplophobia too but I'm far from anti-gun. Putting somebody into a group (even if they don't belong) is a popular way to start marginalizing them.

Depends on how good you are at it. In your case, as evidenced above...well...
Ipse dixit. Speaks for itself.

Your argument that you're not hoplophobic looks pretty weak after you tell us how much various kinds of firearms scare you, and then propose prohibitions on that basis.

Consider that your fears would be better founded and lead to clearer thought when directed at people and their intentions rather than weapons.

You're in vastly greater danger from a mugger with a knife, lead pipe or rock than you are from me with a full-auto AK-47, because I'm trained in firearms safety and the operation of an AK, and do not intend you harm.

If you make my currently legal possesion of a concealed handgun illegal (I'm currently licenced for concealed carry in 29 states), you have disarmed me when I'm anywhere but in my home, plain and simple.

(*muses*)

Has anyone here ever shot a person?

MaggieL - Why does anyone need a machine gun or an Uzi? - These are the types of guns I think are rediculous for regular citizens to own. They serve no purpose other than to kill humans. I will agree that this creates a very difficult situation where someone has to dide what is and/or isn't ok. If I had to choose one absolute or the other, I agree that there should be no ban, however our police are at times horribly outgunned.

I think they are ridiculous too. The ironic thing is that the Constitution specifically lets us have guns for military reasons. To form Militias. Machine guns and Uzis are the guns the founding fathers would have wanted us to have. But then again, the founding fathers thought it would be cool for us to own slaves, so there you go.

Not all of them.

Then the police need better guns, because criiminals won't follow your laws. That's why we call them criminals.

I won't buy into your prohibitionist line of "Prove to my satisfaction that you need ${x} or the government should take it away from you." That's lame. If you want to restrict my liberty, it's incumbent on you to prove an overwheleming justification for it, and "maybe there would be less violence, I think." doesn't cut it...especially when it's already demonstrated every day that someone who already intends to commit a crime won't be deterred by the fact that their weapon is illegal too.

We've been down all these paths before here over and over on the Cellar. It's always been the case here that a gun prohibitionist espousing a feel-good law that only prohibits weapons he doesn't own won't be convinced by arguments from principle...the principle being that once someone passes a law that firearms with characteristic ${x} (for example full-auto, standard magazine capacity, bayonet lugs, pistol grips have all been tried in the past) should be illegal, they're back in the next session looking to amend the law to expand the class of prohibited weapons because--quelle surprise!--the law was somehow completely ineffective in preventing crime. In fact full-auto weapons are almost never used in crime. They're expensive, and not terribly effective as criminal tools.

Go read http://www.clintongunban.com

Thats because my sarcasm was actually relevant to my point. Guns aren't the only way to defend yourself, it is a fact. Talking about how people get scared if someone is walking around with a rifle on their shoulder is not relevant. Get what I'm talking about?

Do you even know what a phobia is? Just because I twich when looking over a 100 story building doesn't make me an acrophobic. An acrophobic would freak out when seeing someone else go up an elevator, hardly the same. Stop going to extremes, it doesn't help your argument at all.

There we go, a good point. No bias, and it actually makes sense. Yes, my worry (noticed how I changed the word so you don't jump to hoplophobia ;) ) comes from the people who will use these weapons, not the weapons themselves. Yet, when you put the two together, it doesn't really make a difference. That's why I am in favor of training before you can get ahold of a gun. I don't know if this will be brought up but I will answer it anyways. Yes, I would rather have someone rob me with a knife than a gun.

I don't have any fear of you (or worry) because you do not intend to harm me. Yet, if I piss someone off and they go buy a gun two hours later, I will be scared of them. More scared of them with a gun than a knife even though they can both kill me since it is a lot easier to run from a knife than a gun.

Not from your ability to own one. Why do you feel the need to carry a concealed weapon anyways?

MaggieL posts justifications for Gun Control. Then denies she approves of gun control. Obviously a paradox. She previously advocated free access to guns by all. Now she says we should restrict who has access to guns? Which is it MaggieL? Either you advocate gun control or you advocate unrestricted access to guns. They are mutually exclusive. Which is it? How can you advocate restrictions on gun access and then not support gun control? They are same thing. And they both contradict your open opposition to gun control. How do you explain that contradiction?

There are two ways you can say gun control. One is restrictions on who can get guns and one on total control. You two just have different definitions.

We already have gun control. There are thousands of laws already on the books, which if enforced, would solve most of the "gun problem".
Unfortunately, whether lack of interest or lack of funding, they are not. :(

I don't advocate "gun control". I simply don't particularly strongly to the current Federal law on who may possess a handgun: over 21 and non-ex-felon.

At the same time, I wouldn't particularly object to removing the restriction for ex-felons (except when it has been imposed as a condition of parole). I don't object to the law forbidding children to posess handguns other than under the currently provided conditions of adult supervision, but if you call that "gun control" then you're using the term in a highly unconventional way; children are not allowed to posess alcohol or buy tobacco but nobody calles that "prohibition".

Or you're trolling. Again.

Now quit your blustering and post your cite where I said "all* firearms posession reduces crime...your continued failure to do so will be a tacit admission that you deliberately misquoted me again.

Your attitude seems to meet the definition.


So kindly focus your legal attention on people who use weapons illegally.

Ah we're back to the old "prove you need it" argument again; I'm not going there. Without proving I need a fire extinguisher or a smoke alarm, I have them both because they are a sensible precaution in my judgement. So is exercising my right to carry arms for defense of myself and others, as the law clearly permits.

Why do *you* feel the need to disarm me? Are you projecting onto others your own fear that you can't control your anger, as your example suggests?