The Great Gun Debate


There was a gun rights discussion going on that was shut down with trolling concerns. This is a subject prone to that. Graciously, it was suggested to move it here to social.

I guess I could be classed as a gun nut. I’ve shot pistol and trap competitively in my time. I still have a fair collection. I have a concealed weapons permit that I almost never use. I do have a loaded pistol handy in the house.

I was only an NRA member when I shot pistol matches as that was a requirement. I never fully agreed with its view. I understand why they are strident. It was the recent Supreme Court decision that supported the constitution that really made a difference. They had something to do with it but really greased politicians more than anything.

I’ll mention an organization close to the other side of such issues – The Sierra Club. I joined that when I was still in high school for a year. I was a hunter/sportsmen from an early age and thought it appropriate. I found it to be better at money raising than action. You may think differently but it, like the NRA, has a large overhead that syphons money into fund raising more than results. I later joined Ducks Unlimited and Trout unlimited where almost all the funds were used for project and supported by volunteerism.

These are my opinions and I hope you can respect them.

I believe in the Bill of Rights. I believe they are still current in our modern era. Right are important in a free society. And that means the “bleeding hearts” and “gun nuts” have a right to their view.

Having been around this many years has taught me that Black and White Issues don’t exist. It is as true in discussion of all shapes and sizes.

What does reflect on all of us is mutual respect. Without that we really can’t say we are adults.

So yes, I am a gun nut. If you aren’t, let’s talk about it. But, acknowledge that we are really talking about your and my rights and views and that deserves our mutual respect.

Whatever is said isn’t going to change any minds but it’s a good exercise in civility.


Interesting idea. I’m skeptical that we can make it work without degrading into namecalling, but I’ll give it a try. I too am a former NRA member (in my youth). I am a current Sierra Club Member. Say what you will about the Sierra Club, but it is one of the few democratically run Non Profits. Anybody who joins is a member and has a vote in elections for board of directors. Few Non Profits have that structure. As far as accomplishments, the Sierra Club is likely The reason that the Grand Canyon is not a reservoir.

On to guns. Although no longer a “gun nut,” I still have a .22 and am fairly knowledgable about guns. I think part of the issue is when people who aren’t knowledgable about guns try to regulate them, they make rules that don’t make a lot of sense. “Assault Rifle” bans for instance. What difference does it make if a rifle has a pistol grip or bayonet mount? It doesn’t matter what a weapon looks like; it matters what it can do.

“Discussions” of the first amendment are always interesting with one side focusing on the first half and the focusing on the second half. From everything I’ve read, the intent was to prevent having a large standing army. We crossed that bridge long ago. Clearly there is some ability to regulate firearm ownership. Some of the weapons that are currently legal, truly amaze me. Rifles by Tracking Point in particular. Anybody with $20k can buy a rifle that pretty much guarantees a hit on a deer sized target at a mile distance. What does any civilian need a weapon like that for?

Perhaps that’s where the discussion should start? What are acceptable uses for a weapon? If we know what it’s going to be used for, we can figure what kind of capabilities it needs. The biggest confilct probably comes with recreational use of guns. It’s fun. Being able to fire 30 or 100 shots in a short period of time is entertaining. Does entertainment value warrant making weapons available that could kill large numbers of people in short order?

I’ve rambled enough. I truly believe cool heads from both sides could get together and create meaningful legislation, but I doubt that’s going to happen. Feel free to disagree, but let’s try to keep it civil.


i don’t have a horse in this race, but I do like what Jim Jeffries has to say about guns.

(If you’re offended by Sweary Australians, please don’t click the links.)

Part1: YouTube
Part2: YouTube


I like to keep reminding people that laws don’t prevent crime. It’s already illegal to kill someone, illegal to have a gun in a school, or even within 1000ft of a school. Laws merely handicap the law abiding and provide for recourse after the fact. More laws will not change a thing.


Actually, I don’t know why there is a gun debate. The Supreme Court made it mute. Amending that is impossible. We all know that Prohibitions fail. We can make all the laws we want on a variety of topics that fail.

The current outcry is totally emotion based. Every night Chicago news describe another shooting – often ending in death. Over 200 a year and more wounded. Until the Supreme Court decision, Illinois and Chicago itself was top tier in gun law restrictions. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results.

I just watched a talk by a sincere young liberal women. Stereotypically, I shouldn’t be moved. She described a young man trying to succeed from almost impossible condition and mostly making it. At school one day another kid called his mom a crack whore and he clocked him. The police charge him and he spent his senior year in jail. I think the courts either dismissed or reduced the charge to a misdemeanor. He tried to enroll for his senior year and, being 19 was denied enrollment. He’s now a “criminal”. The police could have as easily charged the other youth with bullying. But, it was the easy felony bust they took credit for.

That to me says more about the insignificance of the gun debate. We’ve got 20 times as many in prisons than many developed countries. We’re tough on everything bad and what’s it got us.

Everybody looks at the effect and ignores the cause. We look at big pictures and ignore reality.

P.S. No, @Coroplast. I don’t intend to change the title. It is about a whole lot more. Sadly, nothing said here will change things. We let emotional issues control the stage.


It took the Supreme Court 200 years to determine that individuals have a right to own guns unrelated to a militia, so it’s hard to argue that this new (2008) ruling was either obvious or correct. Sensible gun regulations (e.g. restricting sales of assault weapons and large clips) don’t violate even the current interpretation of the constitution, and IMO that’s where we should be focused. Nobody argues that the guns themselves CAUSE mass shootings (as opposed to shooters), but that isn’t an argument against limiting their availability. Both sides need to drop their tribal knee-jerk reactions and instead look for rational compromise.


I don’t think ( The Right to Keep and Bare Arms Shall Not Be Infringed ) means we all can have a . 22 caliber gun/rifle or maybe a sling shot…


I used to have an Heckler & Koch HK-91, which is a .308 / 7.62 NATO semi automatic battle rifle based on the selective fire G3. It was a lot of fun… but honestly, I see no reason any civilian needs an assault rifle, whether it be an AR-15, *K47, or HK.

I don’t advocate confiscation of these weapons, but I don’t think any civilian needs to have them. It’s true that these weapons were designed only to kill human beings as efficiently as possible.

I am also a former NRA member for many years, although currently I let my membership lapse.


Who knows WHAT it was intended to mean; the best we can do is look at the text, which is awkward (to say the least). And, again, this new interpretation of the 2nd amendment is ten years old (somehow, everyone else missed it in the previous 210 years).


I hope the moderator will put a stop to this. There are plenty of forums for this subject and it simply doesn’t belong here.


I think it’s wise to keep your weapons up with the times, just like your HA’s and computers, Just my opinion.


I think this is a fairly responsible view on not only guns but society in general.

Those who don’t wish to view this info can easily ignore the thread.

A dozen post and not a flame or troll to be found might differentiate it from other forums.


Coming from a country that has really strict gun laws, I don’t see the need for everyone to be able to walk into a gun shop and be able to just purchase the most powerful gun on the market.

Our sportsman are still allowed to own guns, my son does. Here he had to go for a difficult exam to get a gun license. Then he has to apply for a permit to purchase a gun. The gun shop is unable to sell him any gun without a permit. He’s even unable to purchase a gun from another person/friend without this permit.

Our guns laws have worked very successfully here, our competive sports people are happy and our shooting clubs are happy. Our gun laws are about controlling inappropriate guns to very inexperienced users. Our gun owners can expect the police to call on them anytime of the day just to check that the owner has the appropriate paperwork and that all the guns are locked in a gun safe and not a glass display cabinet.


I’m thinking that’s what they want you to think!


That would be an illegal search here. A home cannot be entered without a Search Warrant signed by a judge and requiring probable cause. The only exceptions are hot pursuit and exigent circumstances and that comes with limits.


The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a Due Process Clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law.[17] The Supreme Court of the United States interprets the clauses as providing four protections: procedural due process (in civil and criminal proceedings), substantive due process, a prohibition against vague laws, and as the vehicle for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.


@KenP no it’s not illegal as they come with the required “warrant” to look at the gun safe.

@Mr.McAire As we have on has 2 mass shootings in my lifetime, both before gun laws were introduced I think results speak louder than words.


There are over a million people who own AR-15’s and it’s sad to say,that a few mentally ill have managed too get 1. Normal People ( people with all their Faculties ) would never think of committing such atrocities…


I chose the topic and you seem to think it is only about guns. Read the thread; from the start it ask for a more general discussion. It is far more inclusive.

I don’t show up and change your titles. How about the same courtesy? Now you say I am screwing with you. Really?


I think I see why these things often turn into flame wars. We have one side already declaring victory and stating that there is nothing to debate. The Supreme Court has decided and laws don’t work-- end of debate. Not a very good way to encourage discussion. The Supreme Court decision was a split decision (5-4) and it’s certainly conceivable that it be reversed in the future (which will continue to make our elections highly partisan) What might work?


I wouldn’t call it a victory as much as the current status. I am more interest in what we think the debate could accomplish. I see guns used as a stalking horse. If they were outlawed tomorrow, what would be the result? Shouldn’t we be addressing the underlying issue to get better results?

To introduce additional data:

On another note: gun sales have tanked and firearms stock has slid.