Gun Control Debate - Monterey, CA

Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Monterey, CA.

Would you support a ban on handguns?

Monterey opposes
Oppose
 
13
Support
 
5

Vote now in Monterey:

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
vanman

Monterey, CA

#1 Sep 24, 2010
The only reason any government would take away such freedom is that they fear the citizen's will use them against the government. It is every American's right to own any or all weapons of their choice. It is time for citizens to claim their right. Guns are used in crime yes, but the gun is not at fault. Each person must be accountable for their own actions.
Armed

Seaside, CA

#3 Sep 26, 2010
Personal protection. The Police are not able to protect everyone.
liberty

Mill Valley, CA

#4 Sep 27, 2010
anyone that doesn't believe free people have a right to defend themselves is dangerous
Tyrell G

Salinas, CA

#5 Sep 27, 2010
It is our constitutional RIGHT! You CANT ban handguns. That would be like trying to ban free speach! Get Real.
craig

United States

#6 Sep 27, 2010
There are those people that keep trying to say that "the right of the people" means the goverment and that is not the same as the "people" as written in the 4th admendment. Let me know when the founding Fathers changed the meaning of that word.
Watcher

London, KY

#7 Sep 29, 2010
craig wrote:
There are those people that keep trying to say that "the right of the people" means the goverment and that is not the same as the "people" as written in the 4th admendment. Let me know when the founding Fathers changed the meaning of that word.
You are very much correct.

Part of the reason for the 2A is the idea that not all adversaries are bad people lying in wait in a dark alley but it might come in thew form of our government. We are protected by the 2A from them as much as we are people wanting to break in our houses. It is that reason that the government has no place what so ever in any regulation of our rights.

in the beginning of our country we where breaking away from a tyrannical government. And we wanted to make sure it didn't happen again. It's our ability to protect ourselves that we gain the strength to enforce the rest of our rights if need be.
Charles Bronson

Salinas, CA

#8 Sep 29, 2010
Who even wrote this question?? A 16nyear old pimple faced RETARD??? Its like asking would I favor a Ban On Religion?? Idiots like this should just be keel hauled, Tarred And Feathered, Castrated, and Deported after serving 5 years in prison for attempting to over throw the constitution.
blank

Salinas, CA

#9 Oct 2, 2010
Oh, please...going unarmed in my neighborhood? Unthinkable.
just another reader

Seaside, CA

#10 Oct 23, 2010
look at the lack of shooting issues in european countries where gun control has been around a long time
Law

La Vista, NE

#11 Jan 31, 2011
just another reader wrote:
look at the lack of shooting issues in european countries where gun control has been around a long time
Look at the rise in violent crime in those same countries after bans were put in place. And do tell us which of those countries have cities with the same demographics & socio-economic dynamics as a Newark, NJ or Detroit, MI or Miama, FL.
sparticus

Monterey, CA

#12 Apr 13, 2011
only stupid people think getting rid of guns will make things safer. I have freinds in England and their take after the goverment took all the guns from law abiding citizens is the criminals still have guns and the ones that don't use a knife.
Bad people will always kill good people if we can't defend ourselves,families and property.
sparticus

Monterey, CA

#13 May 2, 2011
guns don't kill .It is the fool holding the gun. I have no problem with an armed society. A few dead bad guys never hurt anything
Ocean View

Pacific Grove, CA

#14 May 3, 2011
sparticus wrote:
guns don't kill .It is the fool holding the gun. I have no problem with an armed society. A few dead bad guys never hurt anything
Unfortunately, the majority of gun-related deaths and injuries are between people who know each other, rather than strangers, so it's not so much a goodguy/badguy thing as it is a conflict resolution solution that comes about because someone decides to use a readily available handgun.

Although the current Supreme Court has ruled more broadly in regard to the absolute right of citizens to own and possess firearms of any reasonable kind, I would much prefer what seemed to be the intent of the founders when referencing "a well-regulated militia" being essential to the maintenance of freedom, the right to bear arms [in opposition to oppressive government (my inference)] shall not be infringed.
Ocean View

Pacific Grove, CA

#15 May 3, 2011
sparticus wrote:
only stupid people think getting rid of guns will make things safer. I have freinds in England and their take after the goverment took all the guns from law abiding citizens is the criminals still have guns and the ones that don't use a knife.
Bad people will always kill good people if we can't defend ourselves,families and property.
I'll take Great Britain's per capita rate of violent crime over ours any day, and ours is all about the easy availability of handguns.
Law

Omaha, NE

#16 May 4, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll take Great Britain's per capita rate of violent crime over ours any day, and ours is all about the easy availability of handguns.
No it's not. America doesn't have a gun problem. America has a criminal problem. Also, the UK saw rates for violent crime jump up when the hand gun ban was instituted.
Law

Omaha, NE

#17 May 4, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, the majority of gun-related deaths and injuries are between people who know each other, rather than strangers, so it's not so much a goodguy/badguy thing as it is a conflict resolution solution that comes about because someone decides to use a readily available handgun.
And yet the numbers of annual defensive gun uses still dwarfs the number of homicides and injuries inflicted by criminals.
Ocean View wrote:
Although the current Supreme Court has ruled more broadly in regard to the absolute right of citizens to own and possess firearms of any reasonable kind,....
No, it was finally clarified for those that can't read English.
Ocean View wrote:
I would much prefer what seemed to be the intent of the founders when referencing "a well-regulated militia" being essential to the maintenance of freedom, the right to bear arms [in opposition to oppressive government (my inference)] shall not be infringed.
What does the well regulated militia have to do with the "people" that are affirmed the right to keep and bear? Militia membership was never a requirement to keep and bear.
Ocean View

Pacific Grove, CA

#18 May 4, 2011
Law wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet the numbers of annual defensive gun uses still dwarfs the number of homicides and injuries inflicted by criminals.
Not legitimate defensive gun use by civilians; by the police, more likely. Otherwise, I believe that we would be hearing a lot more every single day about individual citizens and citizen militias arresting and shooting both more criminals and more innocents, but that's not the case. In fact, it is the rare case of legitimate ciilian firearm self-defense that draws public attention over the routine infliction of death and injury by both criminal and civilian on civilian handgun action.

However, please note that this is a comparison of apples and oranges. Defensive gun use (brandishing? threatening? shooting in the air? shooting to kill?) is different in character from counting the actual number of homicide/injuries inflicted by criminals, while not counting the number of times that a handgun is used without effect or being fired in robberies, rapes, etc.)
Law wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was finally clarified for those that can't read English.
So, the founders just threw that well-regulated militia phrase in there just for the heck of it? I don't think so. Otherwise, the Second Amendment would have read like a cross between Oprah Winfrey and Charlton Heston: "YOU get a gun! And YOU get a gun! and YOU get a gun!"

Essentially, the Minutemen were the epitome of a "well-regulated militia," meaning at the time, white, land-owning men, because blacks certainly couldn't have guns, nor could women, unless their father or husband let them. Having people trained in the use of firearms for the purpose of resisting the sort of oppressive government which had just been overthrown, was a laudable and responsible approach to ensure future freedom.

However, the purpose was never to justify arming the general citizenry with cheap handguns or stuff just short of artillery so that they could settle personal conflicts or react to every perceived slight or turf intrusion.
Law wrote:
<quoted text>
What does the well-regulated militia have to do with the "people" that are affirmed the right to keep and bear? Militia membership was never a requirement to keep and bear.
While membership in a militia was never a requirement, the premise that people familiar with firearms in their use for hunting, or as veterans of previous conflicts would serve as a basic personnel resource for future group/national defense purposes (i.e., a well-regulated militia), was reasonable in order to retain the possibility of their future services, especially with the prohibition at the time, both philosophical and financial, of maintaining a standing army, which both Washington and Jefferson warned against.

How the Second Amendment has become a justification for every citizen of supposedly legal mental compentency to have the right to gun ownership, including Saturday Night Specials, when it was originally intended to serve a completely different purpose, is a tortuous story written in the blood of both the innocent and the damned, more in the United States than in any other democratically influenced country.
Ocean View

Pacific Grove, CA

#19 May 4, 2011
Law wrote:
<quoted text>No it's not. America doesn't have a gun problem. America has a criminal problem. Also, the UK saw rates for violent crime jump up when the hand gun ban was instituted.
I'm looking for those statistics about UK violent crime, but have only come across a very interesting, although very long analysis and argument for banning handguns in the US, in part using the UK experience, and the handgun experiences of Canada, Australia, Sweden, and Israel, one of the most heavily armed democracies, to justify the premise. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Dixon2.htm

While these figures are admittedly 20 years old, the premise is that the fewer handguns that there are, the fewer the number of such homicides result, the problem being that in the US, every 4th or 5th person has a handgun, while in the UK, it is less than 1 person in a hundred. Basically, in the US, our rate of handgun homicides is 3000 times the rate per capita than in the UK. In other words 3000 people are killed in the US by handguns for every 1 person killed in the UK. Then again, it could just be a handgun accuracy issue; our handgun owners are 3000 times better shots than the Brits, although I find this hardly more comforting.

Country Handgun
Handguns per 100,000
Handgun Homicides per 100,000

United States 56,833,000 [17]
22,696
3.56

Great Britain 480,000 [22]
837
0.012

Country Handgun Homicides
Population [16]
Rate per 100,000

Great Britain 7
57,376,000 (1990)
0.012

United States 8,915
250,410,000 (1990)
3.560


Law

Omaha, NE

#20 May 5, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
<quoted text>
Not legitimate defensive gun use by civilians; by the police, more likely. Otherwise, I believe that we would be hearing a lot more every single day about individual citizens....
Very rarely does the media report on something that doesn't sell papers. Face it, blood and gore are the sellers. If you want, I'll post stories of defensive gun uses.
In the meant time, read this...

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.ht...

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually."

Many defensive gun uses don't even require the weapon be discharged, merely made known to the criminal that the intended victim is armed. The last thing a 3AM intruder wants to hear is the resident racking a shotgun.
Ocean View wrote:
"... and citizen militias arresting and shooting both more criminals and more innocents, but that's not the case.
Can you prove that?
Ocean View wrote:
In fact, it is the rare case of legitimate ciilian firearm self-defense that draws public attention over the routine infliction of death and injury by both criminal and civilian on civilian handgun action.
To the tune of 2 million per year? Doesn't sound rare to me.
Law

Omaha, NE

#21 May 5, 2011
Ocean View wrote:
However, please note that this is a comparison of apples and oranges. Defensive gun use (brandishing? threatening? shooting in the air? shooting to kill?) is different in character from counting the actual number of homicide/injuries inflicted by criminals, while not counting the number of times that a handgun is used without effect or being fired in robberies, rapes, etc.)
2 million to whatever number you want to come up with for your aforementioned incidents.
Ocean View wrote:
So, the founders just threw that well-regulated militia phrase in there just for the heck of it? I don't think so.
I didn't say it was in there for the heck of it. They provided one justification for the right to keep and bear arms.
Ocean View wrote:
Otherwise, the Second Amendment would have read like a cross between Oprah Winfrey and Charlton Heston: "YOU get a gun! And YOU get a gun! and YOU get a gun!"
Really? Were you there when it was drafted?
Ocean View wrote:
Essentially, the Minutemen were the epitome of a "well-regulated militia," meaning at the time, white, land-owning men, because blacks certainly couldn't have guns, nor could women, unless their father or husband let them. Having people trained in the use of firearms for the purpose of resisting the sort of oppressive government which had just been overthrown, was a laudable and responsible approach to ensure future freedom.
So you deny that the citizen's militia was NOT what the Founders had in mind? Do you forget how the Founding Fathers felt about standing armies in peacetime?
Ocean View wrote:
However, the purpose was never to justify arming the general citizenry with cheap handguns or stuff just short of artillery so that they could settle personal conflicts or react to every perceived slight or turf intrusion.
You don't even know it was included in the first place. SCOTUS ruled it was not connected to militia service (as if there were any doubt.
Second, if you're so adamant that it was just for the militia, why does the clause read "...the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms..." NOT "...the right of the PEOPLE in the MILITIA to keep and bear arms..." NOR "...the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms..."?
Ocean View wrote:
While membership in a militia was never a requirement, the premise that people familiar with firearms in their use for hunting, or as veterans of previous conflicts would serve as a basic personnel resource for future group/national defense purposes (i.e., a well-regulated militia),
Where is that premise stated anywhere?
Ocean View wrote:
It was reasonable in order to retain the possibility of their future services, especially with the prohibition at the time, both philosophical and financial, of maintaining a standing army, which both Washington and Jefferson warned against.
What does that have to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms?
Ocean View wrote:
How the Second Amendment has become a justification for every citizen of supposedly legal mental compentency to have the right to gun ownership, including Saturday Night Specials, when it was originally intended to serve a completely different purpose, is a tortuous story written in the blood of both the innocent and the damned, more in the United States than in any other democratically influenced country.
Dream on. The Founding Fathers never wanted the citizenry at a decided disadvantage to a rogue government.
Your Saturday Night Special reference is indicative of a mindset somewhere between class warfare pig and racist. That you can't come to grips with rights and liberties as written is tortuous in itself. The right to free expression wasn't written with modern means of communication but I don't see you railing about that. Why is that?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Monterey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Seaside street name could honor Obama (Feb '10) Fri Apathy 99
News Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) Apr 19 rabbee yehoshooah... 71,942
where can I find heroin in monterey? (Oct '14) Apr 18 BrocSD 8
News Four suspects still at large in Monterey Penins... Apr 15 M JC 29 1
News Jewish-Christian charity helps Ukrainians move ... Apr 3 Azat 1
News Ask the Auto Doctor (Mar '06) Apr 2 svorpion 1,531
News Homicide suspect Victor Cabrera has long histor... (Oct '08) Mar '15 mando 12

Related Topics

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]