Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.
- Thread starter Wintermute_
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Cold. Dead. Fingers.
CDC says 10x as many peeps die every year from smoking than guns. Tackle a real problem before you try to tell the rest of the US that *you* don't think they should have guns anymore.
I haven't read all the replies between the OP and mine but I will say this: its a choice. If more Democrats simply equated the 2nd amendment with the other issues they believe the public has a right to, they'd clean up every election. Republicans, sadly, understand that firearms are a choice but other things like abortion aren't (to them anyway).
First political party that can line up on all the issues is going to hold all the marbles in this country for many years to come. Unfortunately, most anti gun peeps demonize firearms and their owners in the same way anti abortion and anti gay marriage folks demonize abortion docs and GLBTQ peeps.
I'm tellin you, first political party to back freedom of choice in these matters wins.
As to the OP, one hundred, two hundred, or even two years ago, the original words hold just as much meaning and relevance. If the government oversteps its bounds, If a national disaster occurs and the gov is nowhere to be found, or if the folks in DC rewrite the rules of engagement for your next BBQ (they consider it a political gathering) the premise is simple: if you are unarmed and not enjoying your right to keep and bear arms, you get to beg for your life. I hope you beg better than you barter your freedoms. Plenty of folks in the past twenty years have not been decent enough beggars. May they rest in peace. Even the jerks among them.
My guns have killed no one in the past 70+ years. (There may be an old Mauser or two in there that did something pre WW1, I'm not sure) And, heavens willing they never will. But its my choice to own them, not yours. Prohibition of something that any segment of the public wants has NEVER worked in this country and frankly never will. Can't start a country toting supply and demand principles and then say... everything but that! It won't work.
CDC says 10x as many peeps die every year from smoking than guns. Tackle a real problem before you try to tell the rest of the US that *you* don't think they should have guns anymore.
I haven't read all the replies between the OP and mine but I will say this: its a choice. If more Democrats simply equated the 2nd amendment with the other issues they believe the public has a right to, they'd clean up every election. Republicans, sadly, understand that firearms are a choice but other things like abortion aren't (to them anyway).
First political party that can line up on all the issues is going to hold all the marbles in this country for many years to come. Unfortunately, most anti gun peeps demonize firearms and their owners in the same way anti abortion and anti gay marriage folks demonize abortion docs and GLBTQ peeps.
I'm tellin you, first political party to back freedom of choice in these matters wins.
As to the OP, one hundred, two hundred, or even two years ago, the original words hold just as much meaning and relevance. If the government oversteps its bounds, If a national disaster occurs and the gov is nowhere to be found, or if the folks in DC rewrite the rules of engagement for your next BBQ (they consider it a political gathering) the premise is simple: if you are unarmed and not enjoying your right to keep and bear arms, you get to beg for your life. I hope you beg better than you barter your freedoms. Plenty of folks in the past twenty years have not been decent enough beggars. May they rest in peace. Even the jerks among them.
My guns have killed no one in the past 70+ years. (There may be an old Mauser or two in there that did something pre WW1, I'm not sure) And, heavens willing they never will. But its my choice to own them, not yours. Prohibition of something that any segment of the public wants has NEVER worked in this country and frankly never will. Can't start a country toting supply and demand principles and then say... everything but that! It won't work.
I look at it like the principal of M.A.D., but on a much smaller scale. Maybe automatic rifles are pushing it, but I still think that if everyone owned a gun, there would be no incentive to use it.
Radeonx said:
Agreed.
Seeing as how the vast majority of weapons used by criminals were gotten illegally and are black market, doing away with the amendment entirelly puts too much power into the hands of the criminals.
No matter how much our government tries to tighten gun regulations, it WILL NOT stop criminals from getting their hands on them. Quite the contrary, it makes it more difficult for legal owners/users to obtain a weapon. Enough so that some people might forego it altogether so as to not have to deal with the hassle, red-tape and buerucratic paper work. Sure, though, the additional measures that have been implimented help weed out some here and there that really shouldn't own weapons, but it's not fool proof. Our government needs to come up with some kind of idea that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on weapons, than making it harder to law-abiding citizens to do so.
Personally, I see everyone has the right to defend themself in a violent situation, and simply seeing someone carrying a weapon, or knowledge that a potential victim might be armed is enough of a deterant for most criminals. It's very similar to how simply having a "beware of dog" sign in front of your home has a high probability of detering a break in. Even if you don't own a dog, the criminal can't be sure of that fact and is more likely to pass your house by.
Criminals mostly look for easy targets - they want their crime to be quick and easy to execute and get away with. They're not looking for a struggle. The longer the have to be around the "scene" the higher the probability that they will be caught.
Yeah there is only over a million people in the military. It's not that large.The Man With the Soap said:
For me gun ownership should be limited to weaker rifles, shotguns, and pistols. No body needs a really powerful rapid fire machine gun. I am a gun owner and I think we need a bigger restriction. Did you know in most states you can legally own a flame thrower due to our gun laws?
My guns have killed nobody, and it is unlikely that they ever will. It's also unlikely that I would ever let anyone take them away. Shooting is my hobby and how a unwind. I would NEVER give that up!
This topic popped up in the Religion and Politics section a few days ago (which is where this belongs btw), and my answer is the same.
1. Taking away guns probably wouldn't solve anything. They are far too pervasive within society. How would one gather them all up?
2. Would you propose the government be allowed to take away someone's personal property? That's a slippery slops for sure.
3. There is no study that can prove taking away guns would solve anything. Some of the cities with the strictest gun laws are also the most violent. Look at L.A., Chicago, and D.C. It was mentioned earlier. Look at the CDC statistics that were mentioned earlier. Cars and cigarettes kill FAR more people every year.
This topic popped up in the Religion and Politics section a few days ago (which is where this belongs btw), and my answer is the same.
1. Taking away guns probably wouldn't solve anything. They are far too pervasive within society. How would one gather them all up?
2. Would you propose the government be allowed to take away someone's personal property? That's a slippery slops for sure.
3. There is no study that can prove taking away guns would solve anything. Some of the cities with the strictest gun laws are also the most violent. Look at L.A., Chicago, and D.C. It was mentioned earlier. Look at the CDC statistics that were mentioned earlier. Cars and cigarettes kill FAR more people every year.
Not true. A flamethrower is a Class III destructive device as classified by the BATF. Try buying one... You won't get far. Unless you live in Nevada or are willing to pay the ridiculous amounts of money in some of the other states, they will be nearly impossible to get.Varanfan9 said:
It's a simple argument really. I don't see why it's so difficult for people to grasp that passing a ban on gun will end very very badly. I'm all for control but not an all out ban. Americans have shown time and time again that when we want something we get it no matter what. In the 20's it was alcohol. In modern times its things like drugs, guns, prostitutes, and really anything and everything. If you ban guns the worst case scenario will be an all out revolt with million of people with illegal and untraceable guns attempting to take on the government. This will not end well no matter who won that rebellion. Best case scenario, the number of illegal guns and gun related violence will sky rocket. The normal people that would use guns to defend themselves will be left powerless against the now even larger criminal empires. The police forces would become so greatly over taxed that nothing would get done ever(If you don't believe that consider this: Most states'(and cities') police forces are actually pretty inadequate). This would lead to an even great increase in gun violence and soon we will either be a criminal nation(like with the cartels in Mexico) or a police state.
This is brilliant. I've never heard it put so well. Kudos sir!beniki said:Someone's been watching Bowling for ColumbineWintermute_ said:
Yes, the points you raise are all valid and true. Guns are dangerous, and as a former competitive shooter, I can tell you all about their capabilities. I'm Brtish, and owning a weapon for me comes with strict guidelines, and regular police checks.
It seems like a no-brainer to regulate them, doesn't it?
Well, here's the reasoned counter argument to any regulation. You are admitting that you, yourself, and your neighbours are not, and never will be, responsible enough to have free use of guns.
You are telling your government that you do not have the capability to think when using a weapon, and you are inviting them to think for you. that you are literally too stupid to own a weapon. Not only are you doing this, but you are dashing the hopes that the builders of your country had for making a gun responsible nation. They wanted people to be able to manage themselves.
It is, indeed, a tool meant for killing someone. But so is a knife, which you use three times a day, if not more often, to eat. Somewhere along the line we learnt not to stab it in people just because we happened to be holding it. Take the gun away from you, and you lose that chance to grow as a society.
That's a purely philosophical view though, and hardly practical. But it is an indication of a society which is starting to trade away choice and responsibility for security and regulation.
That's a little sad isn't it?
I'll admit to not reading the entire thread before posting, so forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else said.
About the whole, "if the gov't became oppressive, small arms will be worth nothing!" thing... I would like to direct you to the entirety of history of asymmetric warfare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare].
Advanced technology and better equipment does not automatically mean victory. A weaker force can win, or at least give the stronger force a terrible time and pressure them into negotiations (which we should remember is the true goal of warfare, not dominance), if they use the right tactics. Explosives can be built with household chemicals and equipment, and bullets kill soldiers and rebels alike. A war is not won by jets and satellites, it is won by tactics and guile. If Middle-Eastern terrorists can cause the havoc they've been causing in a poverty-stricken desert, the people in the US, if motivated enough, could do something respectable in a case of civil unrest.
About the whole, "if the gov't became oppressive, small arms will be worth nothing!" thing... I would like to direct you to the entirety of history of asymmetric warfare [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare].
Advanced technology and better equipment does not automatically mean victory. A weaker force can win, or at least give the stronger force a terrible time and pressure them into negotiations (which we should remember is the true goal of warfare, not dominance), if they use the right tactics. Explosives can be built with household chemicals and equipment, and bullets kill soldiers and rebels alike. A war is not won by jets and satellites, it is won by tactics and guile. If Middle-Eastern terrorists can cause the havoc they've been causing in a poverty-stricken desert, the people in the US, if motivated enough, could do something respectable in a case of civil unrest.
I do believe guns need to be more regulated. In Florida, I can literally get a gun in a yard sell with no problem, and it's incredibly easy to get a gun from an Army store. As for abolishing them, that is ridiculous. It is my right to feel safe in my own home by having a means of self protection against someone that can be armed. Even if one was to abolish guns, that would not keep them out of the country; it'll still be easy enough to obtain if one was dedicated enough (like with drugs and alcohol during the prohibiton).
Also abolishing guns would mean cops can't have guns either because of cases like John Gerard Schaefer and Craig Peyer. Plus, it's not a good idea to give that much power to the law over the rest of society, considering already too many abuse the power they have.
And let's not involve those that are mentally unstable, because there are cases like the Akihabara massacre where the guy ran over people with a truck before getting out a stabbing people with a dagger and when Mamoru Takuma went into a school with a kitchen knife. And the only serial killer (not mass murderers) I can think that used a gun (besides the ones linked to organized crime, like Richard Kuklinski) was Richard Ramirez, so if they really wanna kill, they will kill.
Also abolishing guns would mean cops can't have guns either because of cases like John Gerard Schaefer and Craig Peyer. Plus, it's not a good idea to give that much power to the law over the rest of society, considering already too many abuse the power they have.
And let's not involve those that are mentally unstable, because there are cases like the Akihabara massacre where the guy ran over people with a truck before getting out a stabbing people with a dagger and when Mamoru Takuma went into a school with a kitchen knife. And the only serial killer (not mass murderers) I can think that used a gun (besides the ones linked to organized crime, like Richard Kuklinski) was Richard Ramirez, so if they really wanna kill, they will kill.
You do know that in Britain where you cannot legally own a gun there is still gun crime? Taking away the legal right to own guns does not take away guns, it just makes it where you can't own a gun to defend yourself from a criminal with a gun. Because, if your a criminal committing the crime of owning a gun doesn't matter.
I will just leave this here.
I will just leave this here.
You're right, lets do away with that since it is out of date. Let's also outlaw abortion and gay marriage since it is "against the Bible". And for internet censorship? Why not? We are already leading down the road to fascism, what's one more nail in the coffin of freedom?
What would you need guns for ?, to defend yourself against other people because they have to right to have guns too ?. So if it was "Rights to own a tank", you would need to have a tank because your neighbor have the right to have a tank too ?. http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif
Macgyver could overthrow America... with no need for a gun!
Macgyver could overthrow America... with no need for a gun!
Anything larger than a hunting rifle is a bit extreme, and I can understand restricting such weapons, but most hardened criminals don't get their firearms legally anyway, a small handgun would ideally help an innocent citizen protect themselves from attackers.
And have you ever fired a gun? Smelt the burnt powder and felt the kick? That's not something I want to lose--ever.
And have you ever fired a gun? Smelt the burnt powder and felt the kick? That's not something I want to lose--ever.
I am against banning guns but restriction is required to keep them from the hands of nut balls that shoot people, but civilians that just want to shoot skeet or targets or hunt should not be penalized because of these psychopaths that go out and shoot people. People use that outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns that has some truth since suddenly banning guns in the US would go over like a lead balloon