Gun Control (warning: heated arguments could happen)

What makes you think that the military would still be one? Surely, in this kind of situation, there would be at least one split? Plus each individual soldier would have to make a personal choice.
And thats not even considering the politics of it all. Senators and Congressional Representatives call for the President to be impeached when he lies about letting someone suck his dick... How many people would want the President to step down after a disaster like civil war?

 

I am in the United States, Wyoming specifically, and I support the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In all 9 other amendments in the bill of rights, the right is to the people, so there is no reason to believe that this one does not. According to US Code the Militia is "All able bodied men from age 18 to age 65." So the well regulated militia(regulated in 1776 meant trained), is everyone. The thought behind the 2nd amendment was the ability of the people to stand up to a government that over steps its bounds. Brittian was the example they were thinking of since they had just gained independence from Brittian. Based on that a citizen should be able to buy any weapon his government can, as long as he can afford it.
Should there be some regulation? Felons are prohibited from owning firearms, and should be. People with certain mental health problems should be prohibited as well. All of the recent mass shootings were carried out by people who should have been disqualified from ownership my a mental health prohibition.
I also believe a person has a right to self defense and if they fear for their life and have the means to defend themselves they should. Police will not arrive in time to save lives many times.
Full disclosure I am a gun owner. I have also served in the US Army, and been trained in the use of the M16 among other military weapons. I have two handguns and two rifles in my house right now. One of the handguns has a notch in the handle. For those who don't know what that means it was used to save the lives of my uncle and his family near El Paso TX, but taking the live of an Illegal immigrant who was threatening them.

 

You're not really allowed to just leave the military. You really think that Congress would get something as complicated as an impeachment done? The point is that there wouldn't be a civil war since there is only one military and any other group of armed citizens will be labeled as radical terrorists by the media.

 

This is just my thoughts. I am not telling others how to think.

Anti-gun has gone from REAL guns to air-guns and in some places toy guns.

For myself. Been around them, Used them, Good with them, Respect them.

I don't think its the gun-nuts... Its the nuts with guns.
But then it will be knives.
Pointed objects.

In the end the only way to stop people from killing people is to start respecting others and respecting life.
With out those.... People will just find a more effecent way to kill people like it has allways been sence the dawn of time.

People kill people, The only difference is what they choose to kill with.

Thats what I think. But I will never tell you what you should think. Its all choice and what we do with it. Some people are just going to make bad choices all there life.

For me. I like the challange of hitting a tin can at over 100yards pushing my skill.
If that skill saves me or some one else one day, good. I don't choose to kill because I can. That is wrong. I respect life over all else except when one life is a threat to another.
Then the choice is who needs to be saved.

That is how I live my life and I wont argue points of view because like in all issues, Its the choice of the person and free choice is every ones right.

Respect for life should never be a choice and that is where I feel the human race fails.

Not in guns/war/law, But in respect for others, life, and anothers right to live a life of their own without taking anothers right away.

We could all live together doing what we wish having the hobbies and intrest we choose if we would just respect the rights of others and not de-value ones right over another we could have guns, air-guns, paintball-guns, sling-shots, what ever we like.... AS LONG AS WE RESPECT EACH OTHERS RIGHT AND FREEDOM. The basic lack of respect I feel is why we see all the hate in the world. Killing with a gun is just one reaction from a bigger issue that can be found in the debates of white vs black, Christian vs Islam, Rich vs poor, And us (the people on this site) vs the people who want us to dissapear.

I don't think the many problems will ever be solved till the root issue is fixed.
Respect and loving for all no matter what we are or how we think.

Its just a thought I have and how I treat others.

I do wish others would adopt their version of what I have said.
History would have been very different if something like what I hold true was in every persons heart.

Well, Just my inner thoughts, not a debait.

 

I just think if another country can live without guns, why can't we?

 

I think gun control is a debate where absolutism does a great disservice.

This is an outsiders perspective coming from Canada. We have gun control. But if I wanted to legally obtain a firearm I could probably go out right now, and within a couple of weeks bring one home. I wouldn't have an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine mind you.

There's plenty of legitimate reasons to become a gun owner. But a gun is dangerous in untrained hands. It's like cars. Cars are dangerous, but there's plenty of legitimate reasons to own one.

Nobody thinks twice about the red tape somebody has to go through in order to legally get their butt in the drivers seat of a car. So I'm all for background checks, psych evaluation and mandatory safety training to obtain a gun.

But cars are heavily regulated, and as I said, nobody seems to think twice about that fact. But cars are extremely dangerous. And cars have also been regulated for a lot longer than guns. So society has a general attitude of demanding that somebody in the position of the drivers' seat respects the power that is in their hands.

And I'm not sure how long Canada has had gun control, but again, the societal attitude here has become one where somebody holding a gun is expected to respect that power. Contrary to popular belief, there's no indoctrination sessions where we tell our children "you should never own a gun, ever."

I remember back in school, whenever a police constable would come by the school to do their usual "crime prevention" talks the first thing all the little boys want to ask is "can I see your gun?" "Cool" "How many rounds does it hold?"

And I really don't want to be a nation basher because I have friends who live in the states, but I think the United States has an attitude problem when it comes to guns, which is driven by fear and absolutism. Of course most of the gun owners in the United States I believe are responsible individuals. But the irresponsible ones don't get the same ire from their responsible counterparts as they would in Canada.

In Canada if you drank a six pack, and lined the empties on a fence and started taking pot shots at them from 100 feet away, no self-respecting gun club would want anything to do with you.

 

Anyone who is anti-gun has probably never shot one. If you took the time to learn how to properly use a firearm, this debate would not exist. Take a look at Switzerland. You are required to learn how to shoot, and wouldn't you know it, the country has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. A gun has never killed anyone, it's the person shooting it. If guns were to be outlawed, the psychos would find other ways to kill. Plus, there's this thing called the United States Constitution, and according to the Second Amendment, you have the right to bear arms.

 

Ostensibly, I fully agree with you. It is irresponsible to give out guns to whomever has the money and a clean record because it's Constitutionally protected. However, the hangup comes with what the government would do with the ability to restrict gun ownership. If they wanted to take guns away from everybody, all it would take would be tightening the requirements until nobody could meet them. Say, if they make the marksmanship test where a first-time shooter has to hit a quarter at 800 yards, like the best military snipers can do after months of training. Only one or two gun owners would squeak by, and even then they may have taken the test to get a snub-nose revolver to keep in their glove compartment.

If they were to do that with drivers' licenses, the country would grind to a halt and they would have metaphorically shot themselves in the foot. But if they do it with gun licenses, they have just handily disarmed the people they wish to push around, which is favorable for them and catastrophic for free citizens anywhere. That's why there's a huge push in the gun-owning community for personal responsibility. We need to take it upon ourselves to learn gun safety, maintenance, and proficiency, because we can't leave it to those who would abuse the power.

 

Police people learn to shoot and still they use their guns way too often and way too often against the wrong people. Innocent people get shot. Dead.

The second amendment is how many years old? Times change...

Switzerland has a low crime rate because it has no poverty, a good healthcare system etc. People are well taken care off and don´t get desperate...

I don´t think it´s got anything to do with guns or no guns or learning to shoot.

A gun is a fairly easy way to kill someone. You don´t need to get close. That is why it is often a weapon of choice.
I agree that guns don´t kill, it´s the person, but if that person didn´t have a gun, it is well possible he wouldn´t have the courage to kill some other way. Especially when you are talking about shooters in buildings. Someone with a knife would probably get caught during or after the killing of the first victim....

Self defence is brought up, but if someone comes up to your bed to kill you, you don´t have a loaded gun at hand, cause by law, in most states, you have to keep locked away and seperate from amunition...
Besides, if a thief sees you with or reach for a gun, the chance he wants you dead actually increases...Also, they usually don´t turn up alone...

I think there are way more accidents with guns in and around the house that kill loved ones (kids especially) and friends, than cases of succesful selfdefence with a gun, but that is just a hunch.



The problem is, that it will always be possible to get them if you really want to. Legal or not.

 

I think the only thing this thread has done is distinguish the republicans from the democrats. But I wasn't talking about the police. And I'm not too sure what you meant about shooting at the wrong people. Generally, the person with the ski mask over his face is the bad guy.
And the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, which was 222 years ago, see how easy that is to google. And by that logic, does that mean the First Amendment should be revoked as well?
I agree with the Swiss public being well taken care of, after all, they are the banking capital of the world. But on the other hand, if the majority of the public not only owns a firearm, but is also well trained, it would make a robber a bit reluctant to break in and enter a house, especially knowing that someone inside the house has a firearm, and probably will not hesitate to shoot him. I mean, just a bit of common sense.

 

Common sense is that nobody needs to rob when you are all well off.
And again, having a gun is the house doesn´t mean you have it in your hand 24/7, does it? They will strike when you are not at home or at sleep. Both moments a gun is not helping you at all.
And if you open the door to someone who outs a gun on your head, you can´t get your gun either.

That some outdated ("wild west") thing need to change doesn´t automatically mean that everything need to chance.
By the way, it is subject to numerous interpretations.... They could at least try to find a way to be pretty clear about stuff, right?

As for the police, (no you didn´t talk about that but you talked about trained people and they are, so I talk about them. I think I am allowed to do that) it is often the colored person that is seen as the bad guy....