Where should the line be drawn in banning weapons?

We need to find ways to remove people from society who pose threats to themselves and the rest of us - regardless of what kinds of weapons they can access.



Let's stop worrying about the tools crazies and crimials are using and start getting the crazies and criminals out of society.[/quote]



You mean people like Fienstien, Reed, Palosie Obama etc.? I agree.

This poll also assumes we're talking about normal, sane, law abiding individuals.



Regulations keeping weapons from the mentally ill, felons, etc. are assumed, but could be discussed in a different poll.

hawkwing wrote:
This poll also assumes we're talking about normal, sane, law abiding individuals.



Regulations keeping weapons from the mentally ill, felons, etc. are assumed, but could be discussed in a different poll.

Of course, you could make the argument that a normal, sane, law-abiding individual wouldn't pose a threat to anyone regardless of what type of weapon they had.



Kind of like what Mr. Miyagi taught. Once you learn to kill with karate you've learned how not need to kill with karate. You karate do? Yes. Safe. You karate do? No. Safe. You karate do? Guess So. Sqhuish just like grape.

SpiffCoug wrote:

This poll also assumes we're talking about normal, sane, law abiding individuals.



Regulations keeping weapons from the mentally ill, felons, etc. are assumed, but could be discussed in a different poll.

Of course, you could make the argument that a normal, sane, law-abiding individual wouldn't pose a threat to anyone regardless of what type of weapon they had.



Kind of like what Mr. Miyagi taught. Once you learn to kill with karate you've learned how not need to kill with karate. You karate do? Yes. Safe. You karate do? No. Safe. You karate do? Guess So. Sqhuish just like grape.

And that's a valid argument, that no weapon should be outlawed to sane, law-abiding citizens, but I think most people would agree that in the end that's not a good idea because a sane, law-abiding individual could have something happen that causes them to lose their sanity for a moment and I'd rather have them shoot at someone than nuke them.

I ran across a great quote from Elmer Keith.

(Idaho rancher, hunting author, firearms expert, instrumental in developing the .357 magnum, passed away back in 1984 )



"Too much gun always beat the alternative." :lol:

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:
This poll also assumes we're talking about normal, sane, law abiding individuals.



Regulations keeping weapons from the mentally ill, felons, etc. are assumed, but could be discussed in a different poll.

Of course, you could make the argument that a normal, sane, law-abiding individual wouldn't pose a threat to anyone regardless of what type of weapon they had.



Kind of like what Mr. Miyagi taught. Once you learn to kill with karate you've learned how not need to kill with karate. You karate do? Yes. Safe. You karate do? No. Safe. You karate do? Guess So. Sqhuish just like grape.

And that's a valid argument, that no weapon should be outlawed to sane, law-abiding citizens, but I think most people would agree that in the end that's not a good idea because a sane, law-abiding individual could have something happen that causes them to lose their sanity for a moment and I'd rather have them shoot at someone than nuke them.

Same with governments.



I agree with Elmer. I believe he lived in the Salmon area and worked for years on getting the .44 magnum. I'm not sure about the .357. Somewhere I read of a 600 yard shot he made with a .44, but I wasn't there to see it. Heqq of a cartridge though.

Yep ..... Elmer Keith worked on and developed the .357 magnum, .44 magnum, and the .41 magnum. Quite a guy.

nuk13 wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

This poll also assumes we're talking about normal, sane, law abiding individuals.



Regulations keeping weapons from the mentally ill, felons, etc. are assumed, but could be discussed in a different poll.

Of course, you could make the argument that a normal, sane, law-abiding individual wouldn't pose a threat to anyone regardless of what type of weapon they had.



Kind of like what Mr. Miyagi taught. Once you learn to kill with karate you've learned how not need to kill with karate. You karate do? Yes. Safe. You karate do? No. Safe. You karate do? Guess So. Sqhuish just like grape.

And that's a valid argument, that no weapon should be outlawed to sane, law-abiding citizens, but I think most people would agree that in the end that's not a good idea because a sane, law-abiding individual could have something happen that causes them to lose their sanity for a moment and I'd rather have them shoot at someone than nuke them.

Same with governments.



I agree with Elmer. I believe he lived in the Salmon area and worked for years on getting the .44 magnum. I'm not sure about the .357. Somewhere I read of a 600 yard shot he made with a .44, but I wasn't there to see it. Heqq of a cartridge though.

Yet we live in the real world where governments already have nuclear bombs but people don't. I'd rather governments all got rid of their nuclear weapons, but since that won't happen, I'm okay with keeping people from getting them.

Fox just came out with a headline that Senate Democrats drop Assualt weapons from the gun bill. What's left, bb guns? It says Fienstien could add them as an ammendment if she wants however.

An interesting history lesson on the NRA, racism, and gun control.



http://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Though trying to determine where the line should be is an interesting mental exercise, I think you guys are making a grave mistake if you think that coming up with the answer should be the primary focus. Trying to draw the line is a fools errand. It is the wrong target.



It doesn't really matter where the line is drawn. The only thing that matters is WHO HAS THE POWER TO DRAW THE LINE. Once that is determined the debate is over.

But wait, there's more...



The premise of the question is wrong. The government does not have the power to ban anything. They may regulate it but banning is impossible as well as unconstitutional. Nor does an attempt to ban recognize the realities of the world.



What you empower the government to take out of the other guy's hand you first have given the government the power to take out of your hand. Then to your horror you realize that the government does not or cannot take it out of the other guy's hand because the other guy is not one guy but actually an unnumbered mass of guys with unlimited resources and they do not care what you think or what legislation the government enacts.

The president has just appeared with his sactimonious look with mothers who's kids were shot to take our guns and freedoms (freedoms =plural). It's the same as G. Giffords and her husband protesting firearms. Misfortune is not a reason to take freedom! How well would WWII have come out if we'd have banned guns, grenades etc.? Whether it's a private person or a nation they must be ready to defend themselves. What is the president's true motovation in this push?