Owning a gun makes one neither a 'man' nor a 'patriot'. Supporting restrictions on semi-automatic weapons does not make one a 'pussy'. If anything, opposing the self-interested gun lobby requires much more courage than just letting them continue to have their own way
I hate the gun lobby and all other lobbies. I agree that the gun lobby is self-interested greedy scum-bags, but just because a shit head is on the same side of an argument does not mean that all people who share the same position are aligned with the shit head. No, owning a gun does not make one a 'man' or a patriot, but giving up liberty for safety does make one an unpatriotic pussy . No different than when people passively accepted the patriot act, the banking bailouts, the ban on 24oz sodas, etc. I am not a hard line liberatarian, I'm more of a liberal leaning moderate liberatarian. I agree that we need certain social programs, regualtions on the environment, roads and bridges ect...But when it comes to civil liberties (and other nations) I don't like the gov't pushing it's way into peoples business. In my case anyway, it's not even about guns specifically, but rather the long reach of gov't and the preservation of the constitution. Because someone is against a ban on 24oz soda does not mean that person is a fat slob who loves diabeties. Do we really need semi automatic weapons, maybe maybe not, but we do need to limit the reach of the gov't and preserve civil liberty. It is a deterent against tyranny. No different than iran wanting a nuke to deter an israeli or US invasion.
As far as I'm concerned, the threat of tyranny is small, but very real. It may be slightly smaller than the threat of getting shot, but it is a far more severe threat to the overall preservation of civilization than any single threat to ones own personal health or safety. I don't like feeling a little uneasy at the movies (and lately I do) but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make to ensure that my grand kids are not living under some facist regime in the year 2084...
You think it is the thrill of shooting shit up by punk ass dudes is where this is at. We have sent a generation of people off to war who were using both assault rifles and semi automatic hand guns. They have been fighting some kick ass opponents in recent history, You think there going to ever feel safe with that 30-30 sitting in the closet gathering dust. They know in a radical urban situation an assault rifle is there best bet or a semi automatic hand gun. Who knows who may be coming for you, but in the middle of the night things can get kind of out of control if someone comes into your home and they are carrying one of the guns described above and you have been trained to know these guns you use it to protect your life your family. You don't wait for the Police cause there to busy busting potheads or dealing with all the other bullshit in the world.. They also know when we don't have these guns and people from other nations have these guns they are at a disadvantage. It is fucking mess of a cycle of what ifs and what nots.
I come from the Wild West, where everyone had a rifle in the back window of there pickup. They were there not for shooting people but for hunting and taking care of situations out of control. Most of those people were long shooters, so the urban situation would be foreign to them....
okay FRaC, riddle me this then; militia? because from what i have read, most of those fat farmers, out there in their duck blinds, and tree stands, certainly don't constitute anything close to being "well regulated" or capable of defending anything, but their porch fridge.
hey man, don't diss on duck blindin' fat farmers ~ a man's porch fridge is his castle!
and isn't that one of the main points of amendment #2? defense of your property from the gubberment and anyone else trying to take away your freedom (and fries!). kids these days .. y'all gotta be careful about messing with the BILL OF RIGHTS. *trust no one* (except God, of course).
FRaC I get you, but given that context is everything, and meanings from different times can't be applied to old situations, the question that begs to be asked is this; semi-auto or auto weapons did not exist in the 18th century, and perhaps were not even considered by the framers as a possibility of existing, then what in the 2nd amendment guarantees the use of those, by citizen militia? Why stop there? Tanks, drones, etc? That fat Alito has stated from the bench, that there are weapons not guaranteed by the 2nd, so why not AR-15?
also mustard gas, ricin, agent orange, weaponized smallpox, etc. if the gov't was trying to take my property and be all tyrannical and whatnot, i wouldn't want to face them with a stripped down civilian version of a military weapon that has 30 rounds in a clip. they would have the advantage there.
there isn't anything wrong with hunters, even if they have duck blinds. and i don't really think they're typically fat farmers. for one thing, the difference between them and a lot of people on here is that for their hobby they pull their asses off their couch and go outside.
Think I'm going to go check the rubber on my sling shot. Better than any damn noise making gun. Regulators Mount UP! Owe digging out my long bow cause who knows, when one might need a backup.
paradoxxxxx.....yawn. yawn squared x yawn. close the gun show loop holes, require all guns and ammunition sold to have mandatory 3 day waiting periods with background checks. alcoholics drive, yet we don't stop enforcing laws around drunk driving.
"require all guns and ammunition sold to have mandatory 3 day waiting periods with background checks. " I'm not against that. I'm against a total ban on guns.
"yawn. yawn squared x yawn" This is not an argument. Grow up.
Parad0xx86, after your post that suggest people are stupid for assuming gun control laws would have an effect on criminal's ability to acquire guns and that smoking pot is somehow related to a person's opinion on gun ownership, i'm not sure you're the most qualified person to remark on another's lack of argument or to suggest they have not yet grown up.
a total ban on guns really isn't on the table. i don't see how that is an issue in any way at all, unless your trying to rabble-rouse.
it seems to me that gun control measures that make it much more difficult to purchase guns, such as the assault weapon ban, would cause manufacturers to produce less and that would mean less guns available overall. that is not some huge end-all-crime-ever thing, but it might be more of a good thing than a bad thing.
you seem to have this idea that criminals are unaffected by gun control legislation, or even that only criminals commit crimes with guns. it's as if you only see this as an issue that effects drug dealers or something. if you look at the gun-related violence that recently lead this to be a national issue, even going back to columbine or gabby giffords, none of those shooters were drug dealers or crack heads or addicted to meth, or anything like that. when they purchased their weapons, they were more or less regular law-abiding citizens just like the rest of us. if the gun dealer had hindsight before they sold the weapons, it would be easier to gate access.
Curtkram, explain how a ban on assault weapons would decrease the shootings. If they ban assault weapons there are many other guns to choose from. Secondly, the reason I put the liberal college girl meme over there was to make people re-think the stupidity of gun control.
"a total ban on guns really isn't on the table." Yet. You may not be for total ban on guns but many statists want them banned completely. A heavy regulation on guns would cause more guns to be sold in the black market, illegally and that way there will be no way of tracking people who purchase guns. Sounds familiar?
Most people who keep guns are law abiding people who want to protect themselves. There are many instances where people defended themselves and their families from criminals with the help of a gun but you don't see them often on the media because they media has a certain agenda. One recent example is this: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/
While not all shooters are criminals or mentally ill people, the majority are. Nearly 60 million Americans experience a mental health problem. Gabrielle Gifford's shooter and the theater shooter all struggled with mental illness. Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill and got the gun from his mother who purchased the gun in a legal way so explain how more regulation would prevent cases like this one.
If you want to decrease gun violence you need to fix the society first. You have a society that is addicted to violence. You have a government that bombs innocent people for oil. Violence is everywhere. There is high unemployment, poverty, a severe drop in living standards, people are divided and hate each other this affects people's mental health. You have drug companies in bed with the government. American children are three times more likely to be prescribed medications for conditions such as ADHD and bipolar disease, 1 in 10 Americans use antidepressants without even seeing a therapist. This is just a few of many problems Americans have but just like in every other issue the government and the sheeple is trying to fix the problem by eliminating the symptoms rather than solving the underlying problem. Regulate guns and people will still kill each other because you have a decaying society.
following is a link to a picture that suggest there were 69 people who died from mass shootings during the 10 year period the assault weapons ban was in effect in america, and there were 237 in the 8 years since. based on these numbers, doing something might be preferable to doing nothing.
the assault weapon ban wasn't the be-all and end-all of legislation, but i lived through it and i honestly don't think my livelihood was reduced because of it. it did not lead to a 'slippery slope' of any other legislation like banning all guns or creating a police state. saying that hasn't happened 'yet,' but surely if we pass this legislation this time it will, is not realistic. it's rabble rousing. reasonably intelligent people shouldn't get caught up in that sort of crap. this is only one small piece, so let's address the other problems too Parad0xx86, but i just think it's insincere to suggest people who support gun control are stupid or on pot, and i think it's insincere to assume some horrible thing or attack on our civil liberties will occur if this sort of legislation is passed. by the way, the lady in the article you posted had a 6-shooter. there is a significant difference in the rate of fire between that and a weapon with 30 rounds in a clip because you have to keep reloading it.
i also think there is a tendency among republicans in the house of representatives right now to do nothing and wait for a democrat to come along, take pity on them, and take care of them. from my perspective, that's accurate of the broader party right now too, and it's not good enough. same with the debt ceiling, the fiscal cliff, the budget, etc. we would all be better off if a 'certain segment' of our population quit supporting right wing agendas and started putting their country and real life ahead of their ideologies.
curtkram, if gun control laws are so effective at reducing gun violence, how is it that the US cities with the highest incidence of gun violence also have the strictest gun control laws (LOL Chicago)? And those countries around the world with the highest gun violence and murder rates (LOL South Africa) also tend to have strict gun control laws as well?
Perhaps it isn't the availability of guns that's the problem, eh?
"how is it that the US cities with the highest incidence of gun violence also have the strictest gun control laws (LOL Chicago)?
Is there a border control to enter Chicago? If no, then Chicago's gun laws are only as strong as weakest gun laws in the entire country.
"Perhaps it isn't the availability of guns that's the problem, eh?"
Speaking of eh(?), Canada's big cities have a significantly lover gun crime than american counterparts. But they also have a border separating them from Virginia gun shows. Yes, guns still enter the country illegally, but at a much lower rate.
A federal legislation would be a lot more effective than a patchwork of gun laws that vary from state to state.
"If you want to decrease gun violence you need to fix the society first. You have a society that is addicted to violence. "
remove guns from people's hands and homes; stop putting so much money into misadventures aborad; put restrictions on greed; remove Big Brother and get some Nanny state love instead; don't accept homelesness and poverty as inevitable...etc...
so, how does that contradict removing guns? it doesn't. just remove these nasty things that only aim at killing and hurting. you create a need to defend and in parallel you create a need to offend. legalize weed; it doesnt kill people like guns...makes them less likely to find their way to weapons. a happy hippy dopey socialism...with nice urban furniture for everyone to enjoy...and prohibit KFC and all those nasty food chains where the disparate organic "surprises" found in their boxes are probably better for your health than the actual meal...Organic everything without calling it organic...abolish the mega farms...remove guns and rifles and whatnot...be as polite and warm in your international political arena as your nice white protestants are polite in your supermarkets...but please without the fakedom. forgetting somesing? give the money you spend on making nasty opportunism abroad and within on music and art programs for all schools...oh, free education, duh! no one is allowed to be poorer than a certain level nor richer...no more dangerous chemicals in your food! no more fake flavours and colours! learn history; teach the history of human migration. settlements, languages and cultures at school..not your insular national history (whatever nationality that is) history...stop being so stupidly PROUD to be whatever. i'll go back to harmony now; you US people are a bit shrill.
"i just think it's insincere to suggest people who support gun control are stupid or on pot" Let me write this slower so that you can understand. The meaning of the picture wasn't to suggest that people who want to ban guns are pot heads, it means the ban on guns or a strict regulation on guns will cause the same problems marijuana ban is causing today. It is illegal yet people still acquire it. If pot was legal and regulated federal government wouldn't have to throw so much money into stopping drug wars and so many lives wouldn't be lost. The same thing with the gun issue.
Honestly I don't care if the assault weapons are banned or not but the thing is once they are banned people will still shoot each other and then they will talk about banning all guns. If you really think only banning assault weapons will lead to peacefulness and bliss I have a bridge to sell you.
"we would all be better off if a 'certain segment' of our population quit supporting right wing agendas and started putting their country and real life ahead of their ideologies."
Yes I agree. We would also be better off if a "certain segment" of the population quit supporting left wing agendas. This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, this is a civil liberties issue. I don't need to look at Democrats or Republicans to figure out what is right for me or the society I can simply use my own mind to decide that. Your attempt at portraying every gun rights supporter as a gun toting conservative Republican/Tea Partier doesn't help your argument.
"it means the ban on guns or a strict regulation on guns will cause the same problems marijuana ban is causing today"
thats a faulty logic of equivalence. it assumes that people desire to get high on marijuana as much as they desire to kill others.
you remove the gun from someone who might endanger someone else's life then that someone else will be happy not to own a gun for his protection...
in actual fact, your very logic above is a symptom of a widespread disease responsible for the rotteness of the larger picture. this logic of equivalence where people are rendered into predictable swarms, formulaic. guns can only kill and harm others mostly. with weed, there is a choice...from the medicinal, through the benign to the self-harmful...but you're not killing others.
Rusty, Canada has a lot less of some other things that are much more highly correlated with violent crime than the USA. You might want to look up "Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan" and "Canadian Border." A more appropriate comparison would be to countries that have similar demographic profiles to the areas of the USA where violent crime is most prevalent. Sao Paulo is a closer comparison to Chicago than Toronto. Just like Johannesburg is a a closer comparison to Detroit.
And the idea that the reason there are so many gun crimes in Chicago is because people are sneaking across the city limits with guns to shoot up the poor, innocent local residents who otherwise would live peacefully in their gun-free city is double-LOL.
"it assumes that people desire to get high on marijuana as much as they desire to kill others." IF you think owning a gun = a desire to kill others.
"you remove the gun from someone who might endanger someone else's life then that someone else will be happy not to own a gun for his protection..."
And how do you figure out who is a potential danger or not?
a desire to kill someone who desires to kill you still qualifies as a desire to kill...a gun is to kill, desire be for protection or for attack...remove one, remove the other. a gun kills.
"And how do you figure out who is a potential danger or not?"
it doesn't matter. thats the point. you can reverse that statement if you wish. you may assume that many times, the one is the other: the one, in defense, is the one who proemptively offends ..just in case. after all, thats another symptom of a culture of fear. always defensive to the point of being dangerously so. the fact is, you will be removing an extremely effective weapon from all hands. stop spinning silly topsy turvey theories. guns are never good, thats all.
"always defensive to the point of being dangerously so." Since when do you see the defensive people going out and shooting people? If you don't like guns then don't get one. I don't have one, never had one and I hope I'll never have to get one. I'm more of a katana kind of person (seriously) but people don't fight fair and only the stupid goes to a gun fight with a sword.
the first mass murder was when Cain killed Abel. Were rocks and clubs outlawed or blamed for that incident? Society has begun to turn a page where we are defending the right to kill the unborn, terminally ill or handicapped, but are outraged and surprised when all of a sudden the culture of death emerges among us live ones. So we ask the wrong questions when innocent children are killed and seek answers that contradict or continue to hide the real problem-evil exists. The right to own a weapon precedes any government or state authority, and in particular in the US. It has existed forever as a means of self defense or hunting, and yes, a means to inflict greater harm on someone for the wrong reasons (ask Cain). So the right to bear arms is not something the state "gives" you any more than the right to free speech or free exercise of religion. So when we talk about "restricting" guns or ammo, I ask, what other rights are "restricted"? Speech? Voting rights? Not yet, but take away the right for the people to arm themselves, and the restrictions on other rights will soon follow.
This is the most depressing thread of the year, and it's not even mid Jan. Bible, guns and racism. All used in seriousness. Gun obsession is worse than crack.
cain and able? that's where you take this? didn't your god tell you "thou shalt not kill?" or did your god say it's ok to own a gun and kill a bunch of kids in an elementary school, just so long as their not fetuses. in the first 9 months or so after conception their protected. after that, get a gun and shoot 'em up.
the same god that told the owner of hobby lobby he should be making contraceptive choices for his female employees? is that your god? the one that decided men should be making contraception choices for women they aren't even in a relationship with?
isn't it a contradiction that your god would want people to have guns so they can decide for themselves whether to kill each other or not (even though it's against rule number one) but women making contraceptive decisions is not a free choice-instead a woman needs to ask for permission from her employer?
also, one on one isn't going to count as mass murder. mass implies greater than one.
free speech is given by the state. the bill of rights was established to limit congress from passing laws that would infringe on your freedom of speech (plus all of the other amendments), but there are limits to free speech in real life (such as kids getting maced at zucotti park). there are also limits to voting, such as felons not being able to vote. there are other places now and throughout history that did not grant these rights to their citizens.
your god should not be making decisions. and apparently adam and steve did not do a very good job of raising their murderous son.
the same god that told the owner of hobby lobby he should be making contraceptive choices for his female employees?
hobby lobby is stopping no woman from making contraceptive decisions. if a woman (and her significant other!) want to have sex they should pay for whatever contraceptive choice they choose to choose and choosing should not be the decision of the government (hello, China!) so choose away.
Wow. Do you really believe its the state that "gives" rights? The Founding Fathers did not believe the state gave any rights. The rights belong to the people, and its the state's role to protect those rights, not to give them or take them away. Why? Because they are endowed to us by our Creator. If you really believe you owe the state your rights, I would hope that you also have a gun, because when rights don't belong to the people, then rights only belong to the most powerful.
I don't care what your belief is but it is best if god is taken out of this discussion because it is irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about religion, we're talking about civil rights.
maestro, could be please explain what i should do with a gun if i were to get one? if the state limited one of those rights i was endowed with, which they have, am i supposed to wave it around like a mad man, or am i actually supposed to be murdering my neighbors and countrymen? if it's the latter, who do you think i'm supposed to murder, and how do you think that will help?
my previous post was kind of posted in anger. i should have just not posted, so i apologize for that. i found it upsetting that god was brought into a discussion about politics and legislation. i found it upsetting that your religion teaches you a stick is as dangerous as a semi-automatic rifle. i found it upsetting you equated abortion to mass shootings. and i used the wrong 'their,' which is embarrassing.
Wow. Do you really believe its the state that "gives" rights? The Founding Fathers did not believe the state gave any rights. The rights belong to the people, and its the state's role to protect those rights, not to give them or take them away. Why? Because they are endowed to us by our Creator. If you really believe you owe the state your rights, I would hope that you also have a gun, because when rights don't belong to the people, then rights only belong to the most powerful.
same argument can be used against male circumcision and in support of the legalization of marijuana.
The answer is the same as what do you do with your free speech or your right to vote. You can either stay quiet or use it to express your opinions and ideas. The state does not control what comes out of your mouth any more than it can control what you do with a weapon or should control how you vote. However, if your speech causes physical harm (the shouting of fire in a crowded theater), or your use of a gun kills someone (assuming its not in self defense), which we all agree is wrong/crime/sin/bad, then the state has a responsibility for the greater good to implement laws to punish that. The state however cannot restrict your right if it is being used in a responsible manner. Why? because it is the people's right, guaranteed by the constitution.
a desire to kill someone who desires to kill you still qualifies as a desire to kill...a gun is to kill, desire be for protection or for attack...remove one, remove the other. a gun kills.
Thats like saying training in martial arts = a desire to beat people up. Self-defence is not a desire to kill, it's a desire to not be killed.
"Self-defence is not a desire to kill, it's a desire to not be killed"
I'ts a wet fantasy of any gun-enthusiast. Defending your family from the BAD GUY, while gleefully unaware (just like no truly insane person knows they are insane) that they are the only bad guy in the story. One, by flooding the nation with firearms that then become easy to acquire by anyone. And two, by putting they families in actual danger. I'm too lazy to look it up, but keeping firearms at home is X times more likely to lead to a family death than it is for any purpose of protection.
It's not a fantasy, Rusty. The reason the Clackamas Town Center shooting had two casualties where the Sandy Hook shooting had dozens was because an armed citizen drew his weapon to stop the shooter during the former, and did.
A few years ago, an engineer friend of mine was walking near downtown Seattle (on his way home from the office after working late), when a group of 6 "youths" stopped him and threatened him. They didn't want his wallet or anything (they never demanded anything from him). They just wanted to beat the sh!t out of him, and told him so. He backed off, and they pursued him. At that point, he pulled out the pistol he's carried with him ever since he got mugged when he lived in NYC. The "youths" then stopped, one of them said something along the lines of "He's got a GUN motherf#cker!", and ran off.
The cops were of no use in either of those situations. They could never possibly respond fast enough to stop violence in situations like that, just as they were unable to respond fast enough at Sandy Hook or any of dozens, hundreds, thousands of other situations like those. We have a right to defend ourselves, and unfortunately also the need. Guns, and especially semi-automatic pistols, are good tools for equalizing the equation in situations like those. They're easy to use, quite safe if used properly, don't take a lot of practice to master, and even small/weak people can use them effectively against much larger opponents.
I think the issue is that there are some people who don't seem to understand the tremendous social responsibility and liability that comes with owning dangerous weapons - which I think is the real issue whenever we hear about these mass shootings. I actually don't think we should ban certain weapons, just require gun owners to carry liability insurance - or something else that forces gun owners (and the culture around gun ownership) to really understand that they're taking on huge societal risk by owning these things. sure it's a right, but just like all rights there comes great responsibility - especially greater when there's potential for death.
I feel the same way about cars - every time you get behind the wheel not only are you putting everyone at risk around you by moving at extreme speeds in something that is essentially a deadly weapon, you're also hurting the environment and your and every else's health in the process. Motorists are required to carry a license and insurance, register and get their vehicles inspected yearly - travel at certain speeds, are restricted from access to certain places, give the right of way to cyclists and pedestrians (i.e. vulnerable road users) - get a special license for larger (and more dangerous) vehicles, but no one is ever griping about "car rights" because deep down we all know just how destructive and corrosive these things potentially are.
anyway - it's our responsibility to each other as fellow human beings to not kill each other - which is part of the social contract (which, btw, is what a constitution is). "the state" acts on our behalf to demonstrate that this kind of behavior is not acceptable.
Your anecdotal evidence of a potential Seattle scrap is fine, but statistics tell a different story. Each year 20K Americans blow their brains out. Almost 2/3 of all suicides. Additional 30K people are killed by guns (by others), and 100K wounded. This is a topic that should be discussed, but pro-gun side has gone full on ideology, and is not willing to even discuss any ideas. "If everyone was armed then BAD GUYS would go away" is such a BS argument.
Ban all the automatic weapons.
Then a few years later, start banning more.
Keep doing this until guns are gone. I know this is your worst nightmare, but you brought it onto yourself. If those kids were all armed (or their teacher was packing heat in the classroom), or if everyone at the batman movie started shooting... You do realize how insane you sound on this topic?
"The reason the Clackamas Town Center shooting had two casualties where the Sandy Hook shooting had dozens was because an armed citizen drew his weapon to stop the shooter during the former, and did."
You made me look this up, you liar. Clackamas shooter committed suicide.
Did you see the NYC shooting video? Two cops shoot a suspect at a blank point range, and still manage to hit 9 bystanders. And these people have firearms training. How well will a random citizen Rambo aim in a crowded space? These are all sci-fi fantasies of a sick mind.
You may be insane gwharton. You've taken something simple (a passionate gun hobby) and built up a weird Tolkienesque world around it. It's like a confirmation bias on steroids.
If you really believe you owe the state your rights, I would hope that you also have a gun, because when rights don't belong to the people, then rights only belong to the most powerful.
The answer is the same as what do you do with your free speech or your right to vote. You can either stay quiet or use it to express your opinions and ideas.
ok help me out here maestro. i don't think i 'owe' the state my rights, but i know the state will limit my free speech and my right to vote in certain circumstances. bradley manning is an example. his free speech and right to vote have been taken away because he exercised his freedom of press in a way contradictory to the government's interest. so if the government is taking away free speech from its citizens, is that cause for me to get a gun?
if it's a question of power, i don't think there's any doubt the US uses guns (and bigger weapons) to maintain a position of superior power. i don't think me getting a gun is going to balance that power.
you also say i should use a gun in the same way i use my freedom of speech. i use my freedom of speech to troll internet forums. i don't think a gun is an adequate tool for that. a gun shoots. that's about all it does. so by 'expressing my opinions and ideas' you must mean i should be shooting things. so, am i supposed to shoot at a secure gun range? how does that help? you do not sound like a responsible gun owner. to me, as someone pretty far outside your normal group of influences, you sound more like the westboro baptist people.
also, a quick word on what government is, since it tends to be phrased as some separate entity. the government is us. it's all of us (the US government is those of us in the US, sorry canadians but you're excluded. the texas government is composed of residents of texas, etc.). our legislatures all come from the body of "us" citizens, and almost all of the attained their positions through elections where we, the citizens, voted for them. if the state restricts your rights, it's generally done with the consent of the governed. that's how our government works. you fix it by electing better candidates, not by shooting people. if your candidate doesn't get elected, or if your candidate votes for legislation you disagree with, you can try campaigning harder next time or teach people that religion can be found by reading the bible instead of listening to some crazy branch-davidian type preacher. getting a gun and shooting stuff (or people, you haven't clarified your intent yet) is not a constructive solution.
also - when the second amendment was written there were no established police forces or federal standing army, so the "right to bear arms" was primarily both about not disbanding existing militias and about protecting/defending one's community/society rather than just one's self. I think where I have trouble is when people only use the individual self-defense argument because suddenly it makes the primary reason for gun ownership about protecting ourselves from our fellow citizens - which I think is corrosive to our society as a whole.
This is a fascinating debate, but I feel the need to make one comment that should be kept in mind, because it might allow people with differing opinions to have to actually think instead of just spewing competing statistics at each other.
Architects and Guns-Who has one-who wants one
Owning a gun makes one neither a 'man' nor a 'patriot'. Supporting restrictions on semi-automatic weapons does not make one a 'pussy'. If anything, opposing the self-interested gun lobby requires much more courage than just letting them continue to have their own way
I hate the gun lobby and all other lobbies. I agree that the gun lobby is self-interested greedy scum-bags, but just because a shit head is on the same side of an argument does not mean that all people who share the same position are aligned with the shit head. No, owning a gun does not make one a 'man' or a patriot, but giving up liberty for safety does make one an unpatriotic pussy . No different than when people passively accepted the patriot act, the banking bailouts, the ban on 24oz sodas, etc. I am not a hard line liberatarian, I'm more of a liberal leaning moderate liberatarian. I agree that we need certain social programs, regualtions on the environment, roads and bridges ect...But when it comes to civil liberties (and other nations) I don't like the gov't pushing it's way into peoples business. In my case anyway, it's not even about guns specifically, but rather the long reach of gov't and the preservation of the constitution. Because someone is against a ban on 24oz soda does not mean that person is a fat slob who loves diabeties. Do we really need semi automatic weapons, maybe maybe not, but we do need to limit the reach of the gov't and preserve civil liberty. It is a deterent against tyranny. No different than iran wanting a nuke to deter an israeli or US invasion.
As far as I'm concerned, the threat of tyranny is small, but very real. It may be slightly smaller than the threat of getting shot, but it is a far more severe threat to the overall preservation of civilization than any single threat to ones own personal health or safety. I don't like feeling a little uneasy at the movies (and lately I do) but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make to ensure that my grand kids are not living under some facist regime in the year 2084...
You think it is the thrill of shooting shit up by punk ass dudes is where this is at. We have sent a generation of people off to war who were using both assault rifles and semi automatic hand guns. They have been fighting some kick ass opponents in recent history, You think there going to ever feel safe with that 30-30 sitting in the closet gathering dust. They know in a radical urban situation an assault rifle is there best bet or a semi automatic hand gun. Who knows who may be coming for you, but in the middle of the night things can get kind of out of control if someone comes into your home and they are carrying one of the guns described above and you have been trained to know these guns you use it to protect your life your family. You don't wait for the Police cause there to busy busting potheads or dealing with all the other bullshit in the world.. They also know when we don't have these guns and people from other nations have these guns they are at a disadvantage. It is fucking mess of a cycle of what ifs and what nots.
I come from the Wild West, where everyone had a rifle in the back window of there pickup. They were there not for shooting people but for hunting and taking care of situations out of control. Most of those people were long shooters, so the urban situation would be foreign to them....
dinner is ready....more later
okay FRaC, riddle me this then; militia? because from what i have read, most of those fat farmers, out there in their duck blinds, and tree stands, certainly don't constitute anything close to being "well regulated" or capable of defending anything, but their porch fridge.
hey man, don't diss on duck blindin' fat farmers ~ a man's porch fridge is his castle!
and isn't that one of the main points of amendment #2? defense of your property from the gubberment and anyone else trying to take away your freedom (and fries!). kids these days .. y'all gotta be careful about messing with the BILL OF RIGHTS. *trust no one* (except God, of course).
and stay off my lawn!
FRaC I get you, but given that context is everything, and meanings from different times can't be applied to old situations, the question that begs to be asked is this; semi-auto or auto weapons did not exist in the 18th century, and perhaps were not even considered by the framers as a possibility of existing, then what in the 2nd amendment guarantees the use of those, by citizen militia? Why stop there? Tanks, drones, etc? That fat Alito has stated from the bench, that there are weapons not guaranteed by the 2nd, so why not AR-15?
also mustard gas, ricin, agent orange, weaponized smallpox, etc. if the gov't was trying to take my property and be all tyrannical and whatnot, i wouldn't want to face them with a stripped down civilian version of a military weapon that has 30 rounds in a clip. they would have the advantage there.
there isn't anything wrong with hunters, even if they have duck blinds. and i don't really think they're typically fat farmers. for one thing, the difference between them and a lot of people on here is that for their hobby they pull their asses off their couch and go outside.
i want weaponized smallpox to protect my family!!!!! i think i'll start a petition.
War on guns = war on drugs.
Think I'm going to go check the rubber on my sling shot. Better than any damn noise making gun. Regulators Mount UP! Owe digging out my long bow cause who knows, when one might need a backup.
paradoxxxxx.....yawn. yawn squared x yawn. close the gun show loop holes, require all guns and ammunition sold to have mandatory 3 day waiting periods with background checks. alcoholics drive, yet we don't stop enforcing laws around drunk driving.
fat farmers.
"require all guns and ammunition sold to have mandatory 3 day waiting periods with background checks. " I'm not against that. I'm against a total ban on guns.
"yawn. yawn squared x yawn" This is not an argument. Grow up.
Parad0xx86, after your post that suggest people are stupid for assuming gun control laws would have an effect on criminal's ability to acquire guns and that smoking pot is somehow related to a person's opinion on gun ownership, i'm not sure you're the most qualified person to remark on another's lack of argument or to suggest they have not yet grown up.
a total ban on guns really isn't on the table. i don't see how that is an issue in any way at all, unless your trying to rabble-rouse.
it seems to me that gun control measures that make it much more difficult to purchase guns, such as the assault weapon ban, would cause manufacturers to produce less and that would mean less guns available overall. that is not some huge end-all-crime-ever thing, but it might be more of a good thing than a bad thing.
you seem to have this idea that criminals are unaffected by gun control legislation, or even that only criminals commit crimes with guns. it's as if you only see this as an issue that effects drug dealers or something. if you look at the gun-related violence that recently lead this to be a national issue, even going back to columbine or gabby giffords, none of those shooters were drug dealers or crack heads or addicted to meth, or anything like that. when they purchased their weapons, they were more or less regular law-abiding citizens just like the rest of us. if the gun dealer had hindsight before they sold the weapons, it would be easier to gate access.
Anybody ever seen the movie Death Wish
Architect + Guns = Great Movie
Curtkram, explain how a ban on assault weapons would decrease the shootings. If they ban assault weapons there are many other guns to choose from. Secondly, the reason I put the liberal college girl meme over there was to make people re-think the stupidity of gun control.
"a total ban on guns really isn't on the table." Yet. You may not be for total ban on guns but many statists want them banned completely. A heavy regulation on guns would cause more guns to be sold in the black market, illegally and that way there will be no way of tracking people who purchase guns. Sounds familiar?
Most people who keep guns are law abiding people who want to protect themselves. There are many instances where people defended themselves and their families from criminals with the help of a gun but you don't see them often on the media because they media has a certain agenda. One recent example is this: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/
While not all shooters are criminals or mentally ill people, the majority are. Nearly 60 million Americans experience a mental health problem. Gabrielle Gifford's shooter and the theater shooter all struggled with mental illness. Sandy Hook shooter was mentally ill and got the gun from his mother who purchased the gun in a legal way so explain how more regulation would prevent cases like this one.
If you want to decrease gun violence you need to fix the society first. You have a society that is addicted to violence. You have a government that bombs innocent people for oil. Violence is everywhere. There is high unemployment, poverty, a severe drop in living standards, people are divided and hate each other this affects people's mental health. You have drug companies in bed with the government. American children are three times more likely to be prescribed medications for conditions such as ADHD and bipolar disease, 1 in 10 Americans use antidepressants without even seeing a therapist. This is just a few of many problems Americans have but just like in every other issue the government and the sheeple is trying to fix the problem by eliminating the symptoms rather than solving the underlying problem. Regulate guns and people will still kill each other because you have a decaying society.
If we count all internal conflicts, Amerindian wars and other lesser known conflicts ...
America has been at war for 214 years of its 235 year history.
We don't have a gun problem. We have a violence problem.
following is a link to a picture that suggest there were 69 people who died from mass shootings during the 10 year period the assault weapons ban was in effect in america, and there were 237 in the 8 years since. based on these numbers, doing something might be preferable to doing nothing.
http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/Timeline_Final.pdf
the assault weapon ban wasn't the be-all and end-all of legislation, but i lived through it and i honestly don't think my livelihood was reduced because of it. it did not lead to a 'slippery slope' of any other legislation like banning all guns or creating a police state. saying that hasn't happened 'yet,' but surely if we pass this legislation this time it will, is not realistic. it's rabble rousing. reasonably intelligent people shouldn't get caught up in that sort of crap. this is only one small piece, so let's address the other problems too Parad0xx86, but i just think it's insincere to suggest people who support gun control are stupid or on pot, and i think it's insincere to assume some horrible thing or attack on our civil liberties will occur if this sort of legislation is passed. by the way, the lady in the article you posted had a 6-shooter. there is a significant difference in the rate of fire between that and a weapon with 30 rounds in a clip because you have to keep reloading it.
i also think there is a tendency among republicans in the house of representatives right now to do nothing and wait for a democrat to come along, take pity on them, and take care of them. from my perspective, that's accurate of the broader party right now too, and it's not good enough. same with the debt ceiling, the fiscal cliff, the budget, etc. we would all be better off if a 'certain segment' of our population quit supporting right wing agendas and started putting their country and real life ahead of their ideologies.
curtkram, if gun control laws are so effective at reducing gun violence, how is it that the US cities with the highest incidence of gun violence also have the strictest gun control laws (LOL Chicago)? And those countries around the world with the highest gun violence and murder rates (LOL South Africa) also tend to have strict gun control laws as well?
Perhaps it isn't the availability of guns that's the problem, eh?
"how is it that the US cities with the highest incidence of gun violence also have the strictest gun control laws (LOL Chicago)?
Is there a border control to enter Chicago? If no, then Chicago's gun laws are only as strong as weakest gun laws in the entire country.
"Perhaps it isn't the availability of guns that's the problem, eh?"
Speaking of eh(?), Canada's big cities have a significantly lover gun crime than american counterparts. But they also have a border separating them from Virginia gun shows. Yes, guns still enter the country illegally, but at a much lower rate.
A federal legislation would be a lot more effective than a patchwork of gun laws that vary from state to state.
"If you want to decrease gun violence you need to fix the society first. You have a society that is addicted to violence. "
remove guns from people's hands and homes; stop putting so much money into misadventures aborad; put restrictions on greed; remove Big Brother and get some Nanny state love instead; don't accept homelesness and poverty as inevitable...etc...
so, how does that contradict removing guns? it doesn't. just remove these nasty things that only aim at killing and hurting. you create a need to defend and in parallel you create a need to offend. legalize weed; it doesnt kill people like guns...makes them less likely to find their way to weapons. a happy hippy dopey socialism...with nice urban furniture for everyone to enjoy...and prohibit KFC and all those nasty food chains where the disparate organic "surprises" found in their boxes are probably better for your health than the actual meal...Organic everything without calling it organic...abolish the mega farms...remove guns and rifles and whatnot...be as polite and warm in your international political arena as your nice white protestants are polite in your supermarkets...but please without the fakedom. forgetting somesing? give the money you spend on making nasty opportunism abroad and within on music and art programs for all schools...oh, free education, duh! no one is allowed to be poorer than a certain level nor richer...no more dangerous chemicals in your food! no more fake flavours and colours! learn history; teach the history of human migration. settlements, languages and cultures at school..not your insular national history (whatever nationality that is) history...stop being so stupidly PROUD to be whatever. i'll go back to harmony now; you US people are a bit shrill.
"i just think it's insincere to suggest people who support gun control are stupid or on pot" Let me write this slower so that you can understand. The meaning of the picture wasn't to suggest that people who want to ban guns are pot heads, it means the ban on guns or a strict regulation on guns will cause the same problems marijuana ban is causing today. It is illegal yet people still acquire it. If pot was legal and regulated federal government wouldn't have to throw so much money into stopping drug wars and so many lives wouldn't be lost. The same thing with the gun issue.
Honestly I don't care if the assault weapons are banned or not but the thing is once they are banned people will still shoot each other and then they will talk about banning all guns. If you really think only banning assault weapons will lead to peacefulness and bliss I have a bridge to sell you.
"we would all be better off if a 'certain segment' of our population quit supporting right wing agendas and started putting their country and real life ahead of their ideologies."
Yes I agree. We would also be better off if a "certain segment" of the population quit supporting left wing agendas. This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue, this is a civil liberties issue. I don't need to look at Democrats or Republicans to figure out what is right for me or the society I can simply use my own mind to decide that. Your attempt at portraying every gun rights supporter as a gun toting conservative Republican/Tea Partier doesn't help your argument.
"it means the ban on guns or a strict regulation on guns will cause the same problems marijuana ban is causing today"
thats a faulty logic of equivalence. it assumes that people desire to get high on marijuana as much as they desire to kill others.
you remove the gun from someone who might endanger someone else's life then that someone else will be happy not to own a gun for his protection...
in actual fact, your very logic above is a symptom of a widespread disease responsible for the rotteness of the larger picture. this logic of equivalence where people are rendered into predictable swarms, formulaic. guns can only kill and harm others mostly. with weed, there is a choice...from the medicinal, through the benign to the self-harmful...but you're not killing others.
Rusty, Canada has a lot less of some other things that are much more highly correlated with violent crime than the USA. You might want to look up "Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan" and "Canadian Border." A more appropriate comparison would be to countries that have similar demographic profiles to the areas of the USA where violent crime is most prevalent. Sao Paulo is a closer comparison to Chicago than Toronto. Just like Johannesburg is a a closer comparison to Detroit.
And the idea that the reason there are so many gun crimes in Chicago is because people are sneaking across the city limits with guns to shoot up the poor, innocent local residents who otherwise would live peacefully in their gun-free city is double-LOL.
"it assumes that people desire to get high on marijuana as much as they desire to kill others." IF you think owning a gun = a desire to kill others.
"you remove the gun from someone who might endanger someone else's life then that someone else will be happy not to own a gun for his protection..."
And how do you figure out who is a potential danger or not?
a desire to kill someone who desires to kill you still qualifies as a desire to kill...a gun is to kill, desire be for protection or for attack...remove one, remove the other. a gun kills.
"And how do you figure out who is a potential danger or not?"
it doesn't matter. thats the point. you can reverse that statement if you wish. you may assume that many times, the one is the other: the one, in defense, is the one who proemptively offends ..just in case. after all, thats another symptom of a culture of fear. always defensive to the point of being dangerously so. the fact is, you will be removing an extremely effective weapon from all hands. stop spinning silly topsy turvey theories. guns are never good, thats all.
"Rusty, Canada has a lot less of some other things that are much more highly correlated with violent crime than the USA"
Ah guns and racism. The eternal lovers.
"Sao Paulo is a closer comparison to Chicago than Toronto"
Toronto is more racially diverse than both of the others. Be more focused in your racist ramblings dang it.
"always defensive to the point of being dangerously so." Since when do you see the defensive people going out and shooting people? If you don't like guns then don't get one. I don't have one, never had one and I hope I'll never have to get one. I'm more of a katana kind of person (seriously) but people don't fight fair and only the stupid goes to a gun fight with a sword.
Right. I forgot. Facts and statistical reasoning are "racist."
the first mass murder was when Cain killed Abel. Were rocks and clubs outlawed or blamed for that incident? Society has begun to turn a page where we are defending the right to kill the unborn, terminally ill or handicapped, but are outraged and surprised when all of a sudden the culture of death emerges among us live ones. So we ask the wrong questions when innocent children are killed and seek answers that contradict or continue to hide the real problem-evil exists. The right to own a weapon precedes any government or state authority, and in particular in the US. It has existed forever as a means of self defense or hunting, and yes, a means to inflict greater harm on someone for the wrong reasons (ask Cain). So the right to bear arms is not something the state "gives" you any more than the right to free speech or free exercise of religion. So when we talk about "restricting" guns or ammo, I ask, what other rights are "restricted"? Speech? Voting rights? Not yet, but take away the right for the people to arm themselves, and the restrictions on other rights will soon follow.
wait,
you mean it wasnt Adam and Steve?
somebody get me a bible.
This is the most depressing thread of the year, and it's not even mid Jan. Bible, guns and racism. All used in seriousness. Gun obsession is worse than crack.
The right to own a weapon precedes any government or state authority.
Hey, I've got some revisionist history in my site! Quick, shoot it!
cain and able? that's where you take this? didn't your god tell you "thou shalt not kill?" or did your god say it's ok to own a gun and kill a bunch of kids in an elementary school, just so long as their not fetuses. in the first 9 months or so after conception their protected. after that, get a gun and shoot 'em up.
the same god that told the owner of hobby lobby he should be making contraceptive choices for his female employees? is that your god? the one that decided men should be making contraception choices for women they aren't even in a relationship with?
isn't it a contradiction that your god would want people to have guns so they can decide for themselves whether to kill each other or not (even though it's against rule number one) but women making contraceptive decisions is not a free choice-instead a woman needs to ask for permission from her employer?
also, one on one isn't going to count as mass murder. mass implies greater than one.
free speech is given by the state. the bill of rights was established to limit congress from passing laws that would infringe on your freedom of speech (plus all of the other amendments), but there are limits to free speech in real life (such as kids getting maced at zucotti park). there are also limits to voting, such as felons not being able to vote. there are other places now and throughout history that did not grant these rights to their citizens.
your god should not be making decisions. and apparently adam and steve did not do a very good job of raising their murderous son.
the same god that told the owner of hobby lobby he should be making contraceptive choices for his female employees?
hobby lobby is stopping no woman from making contraceptive decisions. if a woman (and her significant other!) want to have sex they should pay for whatever contraceptive choice they choose to choose and choosing should not be the decision of the government (hello, China!) so choose away.
stop the hyperbole!
and stop the condescending God talk, too.
free speech is given by the state?
Wow. Do you really believe its the state that "gives" rights? The Founding Fathers did not believe the state gave any rights. The rights belong to the people, and its the state's role to protect those rights, not to give them or take them away. Why? Because they are endowed to us by our Creator. If you really believe you owe the state your rights, I would hope that you also have a gun, because when rights don't belong to the people, then rights only belong to the most powerful.
speech isn't restricted, voting rights either?? holy shit, are you a fucking retard?
I don't care what your belief is but it is best if god is taken out of this discussion because it is irrelevant to this discussion. We're not talking about religion, we're talking about civil rights.
maestro, could be please explain what i should do with a gun if i were to get one? if the state limited one of those rights i was endowed with, which they have, am i supposed to wave it around like a mad man, or am i actually supposed to be murdering my neighbors and countrymen? if it's the latter, who do you think i'm supposed to murder, and how do you think that will help?
my previous post was kind of posted in anger. i should have just not posted, so i apologize for that. i found it upsetting that god was brought into a discussion about politics and legislation. i found it upsetting that your religion teaches you a stick is as dangerous as a semi-automatic rifle. i found it upsetting you equated abortion to mass shootings. and i used the wrong 'their,' which is embarrassing.
Wow. Do you really believe its the state that "gives" rights? The Founding Fathers did not believe the state gave any rights. The rights belong to the people, and its the state's role to protect those rights, not to give them or take them away. Why? Because they are endowed to us by our Creator. If you really believe you owe the state your rights, I would hope that you also have a gun, because when rights don't belong to the people, then rights only belong to the most powerful.
same argument can be used against male circumcision and in support of the legalization of marijuana.
oh - and in support of gay marriage.
The answer is the same as what do you do with your free speech or your right to vote. You can either stay quiet or use it to express your opinions and ideas. The state does not control what comes out of your mouth any more than it can control what you do with a weapon or should control how you vote. However, if your speech causes physical harm (the shouting of fire in a crowded theater), or your use of a gun kills someone (assuming its not in self defense), which we all agree is wrong/crime/sin/bad, then the state has a responsibility for the greater good to implement laws to punish that. The state however cannot restrict your right if it is being used in a responsible manner. Why? because it is the people's right, guaranteed by the constitution.
a desire to kill someone who desires to kill you still qualifies as a desire to kill...a gun is to kill, desire be for protection or for attack...remove one, remove the other. a gun kills.
Thats like saying training in martial arts = a desire to beat people up. Self-defence is not a desire to kill, it's a desire to not be killed.
"Self-defence is not a desire to kill, it's a desire to not be killed"
I'ts a wet fantasy of any gun-enthusiast. Defending your family from the BAD GUY, while gleefully unaware (just like no truly insane person knows they are insane) that they are the only bad guy in the story. One, by flooding the nation with firearms that then become easy to acquire by anyone. And two, by putting they families in actual danger. I'm too lazy to look it up, but keeping firearms at home is X times more likely to lead to a family death than it is for any purpose of protection.
It's not a fantasy, Rusty. The reason the Clackamas Town Center shooting had two casualties where the Sandy Hook shooting had dozens was because an armed citizen drew his weapon to stop the shooter during the former, and did.
A few years ago, an engineer friend of mine was walking near downtown Seattle (on his way home from the office after working late), when a group of 6 "youths" stopped him and threatened him. They didn't want his wallet or anything (they never demanded anything from him). They just wanted to beat the sh!t out of him, and told him so. He backed off, and they pursued him. At that point, he pulled out the pistol he's carried with him ever since he got mugged when he lived in NYC. The "youths" then stopped, one of them said something along the lines of "He's got a GUN motherf#cker!", and ran off.
The cops were of no use in either of those situations. They could never possibly respond fast enough to stop violence in situations like that, just as they were unable to respond fast enough at Sandy Hook or any of dozens, hundreds, thousands of other situations like those. We have a right to defend ourselves, and unfortunately also the need. Guns, and especially semi-automatic pistols, are good tools for equalizing the equation in situations like those. They're easy to use, quite safe if used properly, don't take a lot of practice to master, and even small/weak people can use them effectively against much larger opponents.
@maestro:
I think the issue is that there are some people who don't seem to understand the tremendous social responsibility and liability that comes with owning dangerous weapons - which I think is the real issue whenever we hear about these mass shootings. I actually don't think we should ban certain weapons, just require gun owners to carry liability insurance - or something else that forces gun owners (and the culture around gun ownership) to really understand that they're taking on huge societal risk by owning these things. sure it's a right, but just like all rights there comes great responsibility - especially greater when there's potential for death.
I feel the same way about cars - every time you get behind the wheel not only are you putting everyone at risk around you by moving at extreme speeds in something that is essentially a deadly weapon, you're also hurting the environment and your and every else's health in the process. Motorists are required to carry a license and insurance, register and get their vehicles inspected yearly - travel at certain speeds, are restricted from access to certain places, give the right of way to cyclists and pedestrians (i.e. vulnerable road users) - get a special license for larger (and more dangerous) vehicles, but no one is ever griping about "car rights" because deep down we all know just how destructive and corrosive these things potentially are.
anyway - it's our responsibility to each other as fellow human beings to not kill each other - which is part of the social contract (which, btw, is what a constitution is). "the state" acts on our behalf to demonstrate that this kind of behavior is not acceptable.
gwharton,
Your anecdotal evidence of a potential Seattle scrap is fine, but statistics tell a different story. Each year 20K Americans blow their brains out. Almost 2/3 of all suicides. Additional 30K people are killed by guns (by others), and 100K wounded. This is a topic that should be discussed, but pro-gun side has gone full on ideology, and is not willing to even discuss any ideas. "If everyone was armed then BAD GUYS would go away" is such a BS argument.
Ban all the automatic weapons.
Then a few years later, start banning more.
Keep doing this until guns are gone. I know this is your worst nightmare, but you brought it onto yourself. If those kids were all armed (or their teacher was packing heat in the classroom), or if everyone at the batman movie started shooting... You do realize how insane you sound on this topic?
"The reason the Clackamas Town Center shooting had two casualties where the Sandy Hook shooting had dozens was because an armed citizen drew his weapon to stop the shooter during the former, and did."
You made me look this up, you liar. Clackamas shooter committed suicide.
Did you see the NYC shooting video? Two cops shoot a suspect at a blank point range, and still manage to hit 9 bystanders. And these people have firearms training. How well will a random citizen Rambo aim in a crowded space? These are all sci-fi fantasies of a sick mind.
You may be insane gwharton. You've taken something simple (a passionate gun hobby) and built up a weird Tolkienesque world around it. It's like a confirmation bias on steroids.
If you really believe you owe the state your rights, I would hope that you also have a gun, because when rights don't belong to the people, then rights only belong to the most powerful.
The answer is the same as what do you do with your free speech or your right to vote. You can either stay quiet or use it to express your opinions and ideas.
ok help me out here maestro. i don't think i 'owe' the state my rights, but i know the state will limit my free speech and my right to vote in certain circumstances. bradley manning is an example. his free speech and right to vote have been taken away because he exercised his freedom of press in a way contradictory to the government's interest. so if the government is taking away free speech from its citizens, is that cause for me to get a gun?
if it's a question of power, i don't think there's any doubt the US uses guns (and bigger weapons) to maintain a position of superior power. i don't think me getting a gun is going to balance that power.
you also say i should use a gun in the same way i use my freedom of speech. i use my freedom of speech to troll internet forums. i don't think a gun is an adequate tool for that. a gun shoots. that's about all it does. so by 'expressing my opinions and ideas' you must mean i should be shooting things. so, am i supposed to shoot at a secure gun range? how does that help? you do not sound like a responsible gun owner. to me, as someone pretty far outside your normal group of influences, you sound more like the westboro baptist people.
also, a quick word on what government is, since it tends to be phrased as some separate entity. the government is us. it's all of us (the US government is those of us in the US, sorry canadians but you're excluded. the texas government is composed of residents of texas, etc.). our legislatures all come from the body of "us" citizens, and almost all of the attained their positions through elections where we, the citizens, voted for them. if the state restricts your rights, it's generally done with the consent of the governed. that's how our government works. you fix it by electing better candidates, not by shooting people. if your candidate doesn't get elected, or if your candidate votes for legislation you disagree with, you can try campaigning harder next time or teach people that religion can be found by reading the bible instead of listening to some crazy branch-davidian type preacher. getting a gun and shooting stuff (or people, you haven't clarified your intent yet) is not a constructive solution.
also - when the second amendment was written there were no established police forces or federal standing army, so the "right to bear arms" was primarily both about not disbanding existing militias and about protecting/defending one's community/society rather than just one's self. I think where I have trouble is when people only use the individual self-defense argument because suddenly it makes the primary reason for gun ownership about protecting ourselves from our fellow citizens - which I think is corrosive to our society as a whole.
This is a fascinating debate, but I feel the need to make one comment that should be kept in mind, because it might allow people with differing opinions to have to actually think instead of just spewing competing statistics at each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.