Had Enough

[razorhog703 15]

I hope when the feds come for all the guns, enough state and city governors and people refuse and states secede if necessary. Which would include military bases and such. So a seceding state against the fed takeover could have a bunch of Apache's and F35's and bases as was mentioned. If all else fails of the three branches...

 

I honestly hope we never see this day, but I agree that something will happen if we are criminalized due to what gun or magazines we own or would like to own.

[LHookins 3,103]

"God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal"

 

Hook

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Automatic weapons are not prevalent or readily accessible. Like others I think you are confused with political term of assault rifles. Full auto, Class 2 weapons, are extremely hard to get due to background checks and availability.

 

How do you feel about full auto weapons being subject to background checks. Isn't that an infringement of the right to bear arms? I hear some from the far right fringes of this argument say that any such check violates their rights.

 

As for automatic weapons I consider them any weapon that can discharge more than a few rounds in a short period of time. But I do confess ignorance as to what type of weapon that is. I remember a recent story on the myths surrounding automatic weapons that Hollywood likes to throw out there--where movies show people with virtually unlimited firepower, unlimited ammo, and mythical rounds per second being shot. So many of us are brainwashed, so to speak, when it comes to understanding what weapons can or can't do.

 

I think the real answers to the challenges that these arguments discuss rest in more education on mental health and more intervention by teachers and even employers when it appears those under their watch are showing signs of emotional trouble, Also Hollywood and the electronic gaming industry need to learn to show more restraint when it comes to exposing us to violence. I remember when violence was portrayed with far less intensity than it is today (and before the film industry, we rarely saw such violence of any sort). But at least in the 50's and 60's, you saw the bad guys go down, but you didn't see them being dismembered, disembowled, etc.. Somewhere it all changed and we see things of such horror. I am an avid Sci Fi watcher, movies such as Close Encounters, Contact, etc..., but I cannot stomach watching the SyFy channel--as soon as they go to commercial break, they air horror film commercials with no parental warning, showing far too much.

 

Anyway, those things, more than gun control, need to be addressed. Will they? Not as long as money changes hands and profits are made by Hollywood and the gaming industry.

 

John

[pmanhart 176]

The 2nd Amendment was drafted over 200 years ago. Times change, this is no longer the wild west but a civilized country. It is time to bring the laws up to date with current reality and the wishes of the majority of the electorate. There is no practical reason for owning an assault rifle and large ammo clips. To say that other rights may follow is true--but only if the majority decide that is the way to go. This is a democracy, and the majority of the population supports some measure of gun control.

 

First, you do not understand the reason for the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to ensure that the free peoples of the United States could defend themselves from tyrannical rule. The Second Amendment was not included for hunting, target-shooting or gun collecting. This is not a position that was made-up by modern day militias or gun rights activists, it was the position of the founding fathers who drafted the Constitution.

 

What makes America unique in the world of nations, is that We The People have Consitutional protection to our individual liberty above all else. We retain the right to defend ourselves and our property against not only fellow citizens, or non-citizens, but those that would seek to oppress us. It is absolutely paramount that we maintain this right in order to ensure that a majority cannot lord over the minority, or vice versa. Again, I must stress it is about individual liberty, not about the whole. A way of putting it would be; the rights of the individual trump the wants or needs of the many.

 

Second, if you do not think there is already gun control you are mistaken. I believe what you, and the majority of us Americans want, is to keep guns out of the hands of those who seek to use them to kill others. Making it harder for law-abiding citizens to purchase weapons will not help you achieve that goal, and will only make it harder for those of us who choose to, defend ourselves. Currently, in every city that has enacted strict gun control laws, and/or bans, gun crime has increased. For example, last year in Chicago, which bans the carrying of personal firearms, more people died being killed by illegally obtained and held guns than Coalition soldiers (US and allies) in Afghanistan! On the other hand, Washington D.C., which has rescinded a ban on personal firearms, has had it's gun crimes decrease.

 

Making it harder for those of use who follow the law to obtain firearms, does not make it harder for those who defy the law to obtain firearms. Those who wish to commit evil acts with a gun will do what is necessary to obtain a gun, whether it be theft or through a 'straw-man' purchase (someone else buys the gun for that person). We need to accept the fact that guns will never go away, and limiting access through law does not stop guns from being used by the wrong people or for the wrong purpose.

 

Third, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. Thankfully, we good guys outnumber the bad guys, and there are countless examples where ordinary citizens have stopped criminals in the act of murder. According to the data, just shy of one-million crimes are prevented every year buy someone brandishing (read, not shooting) their personally owned weapon.

 

Fourth, I must again emphasize that we have the right to protect our individual liberty. If you choose to rely on others such as the public police or personal security, than that is your right. However, I and others like me, choose to rely on ourselves to protect our individual liberty. I do not have the right to disband the public police forces and mandate that you carry a personal firearm, and likewise, you do not have the right to mandate that I surrender mine and rely on the public police force. The rights of the individual as presented in the Constitution are paramount over the wants, needs or desires of the majority.

 

Lastly, this talk of civilized society is ridiculous. Can anyone really look at the violence in Chicago, L.A., Detroit, etc. and say that they are examples of civilized society? Committing violent acts is not civilized, and until we are all drones taking our blue pills every day, there will always be those who have the desire to commit violence. Those of use who wish to maintain our civilized way of life, must have the ability to protect ourselves from those who wish to destroy it.

[bill62 40]

With no emotions attached...

 

I can't imagine the Founding Fathers of this country drafting constitutional language that would protect our rights to our right to own military grade assualt weapons in light of the random shootings. Afterall, they wrote language that safeguarded against the things the country feared at the time the document was drafted.

 

Unfortunately we Americans are so polarized on the subject, we can't seem to have civil debate that would produce practical recommendations and solutions that address this this problem.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Likewise, I doubt the average gun owner who spends hours at the firing range (eating breakfast and lunch there) would know much about the distinction and differentials between Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism and Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction......

 

OK, None of that talk here! Wait a minute, what did you say? :unsure:

[brant 12]

I can't imagine the Founding Fathers of this country drafting constitutional language that would protect our rights to our right to own military grade assualt weapons in light of the random shootings.

 

 

when written, the 2nd amendment was so we could have military grade weapons, to defend from invasion (british). despite all the horrific casualties, i see where nothing about that should be changed. regarding the newtown shooting, that boy would've found a way to kill them. from what i've read, he had a raging jealousy over his mother's relationship with her students as and his intention to kill would not have been stopped. considering the location, he could've done just as much damage with a shotgun, or even less of a weapon.

[Bob Scott 7,721]

So, let's just be honest here and conclude that Weapons of Mass Killings, really have no place in a civilized society. I think that is a reasonable position to hold in such an enlightened culture. I don't believe that we need to continue to pretend to not be smart enough to do the math on this. When you give people access to that kind of killing power, somebody is going to use it someday. Nobody wants that to be their own daughter's or their own son's classroom, or the office building their spouse works in each day. None of us want to get that phone call at 9:30am, none of us.

 

So should we conclude that diesel fuel and fertilizer, which Timothy McVeigh used to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City, also have no place in civilized society? Or boxcutters, since they were the only weapon used on 9/11 to get control of three airliners and kill over 3,000 people?

 

I'll be honest here and suggest that focusing on the tool a madman uses to commit mass murder is going to solve exactly nothing, especially given that there are almost as many guns in circulation as there are people in the US, and that there's ample evidence that mass murders are still being committed in places where guns are very hard to get. A bottle of propane from a BBQ grill and a claw hammer are enough weaponry to take out a school bus full of kids in less than a minute's time. A few gallons of gasoline in the right place can turn a crowded venue into a crematorium. Mass murder can be committed with poisons, improvised explosives, structural sabotage, vehicles of all sorts, knives and other cutting instruments, clubs, bats, and chemical agents. The Norway massacre started with a fuel-fertilizer bomb much like the one McVeigh used. There was a mass knifing in a China school just last month. The shoe and underwear bombers came all too close to succeeding in bringing down airplanes with home-made PETN explosive.

 

If our assault rifles were as nefarious as the anti-gun crowd (you know, people that label them "Weapons of Mass Killings") would have us believe, there'd be mass murder committed with them regularly. But cars are FAR more often misused to fatal effect than assault rifles, especially in combination with alcohol and other drugs. Yet there's no hue and cry about banning the BMW (Big Mass-killing Weapon?) when they're misused daily to maim and kill on America's roads. This debate is not about safety, it is about gun control. And gun control is never about guns--it is about control.

 

The founding fathers ensured that private citizens had the same kind of weaponry as the King's soldiers in their time. I think there's still a compelling interest in the same sort of parity--a people that wants to remain free should not think it wise to endow their government with weapons while allowing their government to deny the same to themselves. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said "those who turn their swords into plowshares will soon find themselves plowing for those who do not."

[concorde11 8]

Interesting to read everybody's opinions and views from across the world in this forum. Obviously there is a huge chasm that separates the views of many Americans with the views held by those in other nations or those of different backgrounds. So allow me to share my opinion on the issue.

 

One of the biggest arguments I hear is that the Constitution is 200+ years old and the rights it guaranteed two centuries are no longer relevant today. Let's say that argument is viewed by Congress as correct and the 2nd Amendment is repealed. As others have mentioned, there are already 300 million firearms in the United States (one of which I am the legal owner of). Such a change to the Constitution would mean that all firearms would have to be turned into the government, and chances are that most law-abiding citizens would do so. But that is precisely the problem.

 

Those that will abide by the law are the ones who are also responsible gun owners who don't have criminal records. On the other hand, the people who would commit gun violence are the same ones who would not turn in their guns. After all, why would somebody who is willing to break the law by murdering another human being be likely to obey a law telling them to turn in their gun? It makes no sense.

 

Luckily, the laws proposed today are not aimed at repealing the 2nd Amendment. Instead they aim to ban assault rifles and high capacity clips and magazines. Will these measures be effective in reducing gun violence? Of course not! Is a deranged and evil person really going to stop and make sure that he doesn't have more than ten bullets in his magazine before he attempts to murder people? No! Like I said before, if a person is going to ignore our most serious laws, why would they obey a lesser law?

 

Ultimately the problem is that elected officials in the government have the "do something" disease. Yes Sandy Hook was tragic and everything should be done to protect the citizens and especially the children of the United States. But I think that many of these lawmakers are getting so caught up trying to place stricter regulations on guns that they are forgetting their initial goal of effectively protecting students in the classroom.

 

These proposed laws are no more than a facade to make it appear that something is being done to solve gun violence. The reality is that the world is broken and it will never be perfect. If heaven forbid, my family and I are face by an individual with evil intentions I should have the right to stop that person by any means necessary.

 

There are legitimate uses for high powered guns. For instance, where I live in the Pacific Northwest it is a good idea to have a high powered pistol when hiking to defend against hungry cougars and bears. Nearly every gun owner in America is responsible. New laws restricting their ownership rights will do nothing to curb gun violence. It seems that we are introducing a lot of legislation, but in a few years when we look up to see where we are at, we'll realize that we've just been walking in circles.

[Great Ozzie 101]

Not everyone wants to learn about the differentials and distinctions between Automatic, Semi-Automatic and/or Hybrid firearms.

 

Then one should simply stay out of the conversation with their "opinion" as it is nothing more than gibberish / un-welcomed noise.

 

I think most people with common social sense (whether they can articulate it or not) understand is that many of the so-called CW, SBR, SBS and/or AOA type weapons, can be converted (along with non-AOA types) into either Auto or Semi-Auto functions.

 

I hope by this convoluted statement you are not trying to say it's easy to convert semi-auto to full auto... as that is just plain crap.

 

And what kind of action are you going to use to convert to semi-auto??? Lever? Bolt? Single-shot?

 

Likewise, I doubt the average gun owner who spends hours at the firing range (eating breakfast and lunch there) would know much about the distinction and differentials between Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism and Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction

 

Very poor analogy... you don't need a master's degree to discuss this issue.

 

So, let's just be honest here and conclude that Weapons of Mass Killings

 

Oh puh-leeze...

 

 

 

So should we conclude

 

Excellent post Bob.

 

I have you and John to thank for my head not exploding.

 

-Rob

[DreamsOfWings 18]

This is a democracy

Negative. We are a Republic NOT a democracy. The Constitution over rides popular or majority views. Remember the civil rights abuses that the supreme court ruled unconstitutional? Over 62% of the country was against that ruling. If majority ruled Jay Z would be the Pope.

[XPX64man 130]

There is also no practical reason for owning a car with 600HP and can do 200MPH when the fastest you can legally go on some roads is 80mph. More people die on car accidents in a year, by far, than people killed by assault rifles. Are we going to also restrict owning high poweres vehicles? Because after all, like you said, times have changed and we no longer move around by horse and carriages.

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

This is a very poor argument. Cars are not designed to kill people, even if they go 200mph. They are designed for transportation. Some are designed for sporty transportation, but none are designed to kill people. The first time that General Motors builds a car that is designed for the explicit purpose of killing people, I'm sure many laws and Federal regulations will kick in to stop its production and distribution.

Military assault weapons and large capacity magazines are designed to kill people fast and efficiently. They have no other purpose and they are very good at what they do. They cannot be compared to anything that is offered for transportation, except maybe an M1 Abrams Tank (which fortunately cannot be purchased for private use in America).

If someone designed a hand-held weapon that would instantly kill everyone within a cone of a mile from the business end, with one pull of the trigger, this gun would be looked at seriously by the military to use for national security. Yet should a weapon like this fall into the hands of the general public? It would be insanity to think it should.

Just because a weapon is designed for war does not mean that the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that that weapon should be distributed for public use.

 

There is a good 2nd Amendment argument to support private use of rifles and pistols, but there is NO argument at all to support the distribution of weapons that are designed for war and military use, being used by the general civilian public. This should be a "non-issue" for a civil society.

 

Bob

[John_Cillis 2,406]

So should we conclude that diesel fuel and fertilizer, which Timothy McVeigh used to kill 168 people in Oklahoma City, also have no place in civilized society? Or boxcutters, since they were the only weapon used on 9/11 to get control of three airliners and kill over 3,000 people?

 

I'll be honest here and suggest that focusing on the tool a madman uses to commit mass murder is going to solve exactly nothing, especially given that there are almost as many guns in circulation as there are people in the US, and that there's ample evidence that mass murders are still being committed in places where guns are very hard to get. A bottle of propane from a BBQ grill and a claw hammer are enough weaponry to take out a school bus full of kids in less than a minute's time. A few gallons of gasoline in the right place can turn a crowded venue into a crematorium. Mass murder can be committed with poisons, improvised explosives, structural sabotage, vehicles of all sorts, knives and other cutting instruments, clubs, bats, and chemical agents. The Norway massacre started with a fuel-fertilizer bomb much like the one McVeigh used. There was a mass knifing in a China school just last month. The shoe and underwear bombers came all too close to succeeding in bringing down airplanes with home-made PETN explosive.

 

If our assault rifles were as nefarious as the anti-gun crowd (you know, people that label them "Weapons of Mass Killings") would have us believe, there'd be mass murder committed with them regularly. But cars are FAR more often misused to fatal effect than assault rifles, especially in combination with alcohol and other drugs. Yet there's no hue and cry about the BMW (Big Mass-killing Weapon?) when they're misused daily to maim and kill on America's roads. Gun control is never about guns--it is about control.

 

The founding fathers ensured that private citizens had the same kind of weaponry as the King's soldiers in their time. I think there's still a compelling interest in the same sort of parity--a people that wants to remain free should not think it wise to endow their government with weapons while allowing their government to deny the same to themselves. I think it was Thomas Jefferson that said "those who turn their swords into plowshares will soon find themselves plowing for those who do not."

 

Hi Bob,

 

I never thought of it that way, the way you worded in your last paragraph. Still I think we've moved beyond a point where the citizens can counterbalance a government bent on oppression using the second amendment as our shield. Our government has us woefully outgunned and outmanned should it ever go in that direction. You are right to cite so many ways people can "take us out" should they be inclined to. Still, is no gun control at all the answer? Controls were put into effect on box cutters, liquids and so on after 9/11 and similar terrorist incidents. Were those controls wrong? No controls at all, even on our free speech, leads to no civilized society. I accept controls on what I can say--for instance, in this forum, or on the floor of congress, or at a public venue. So far I see many of the same arguments--everything can kill, so why don't we ban everything? My take--why make it easier to kill by making firepower so readily available without any form of restraint?

 

John

[tf51d 284]

One of the biggest arguments I hear is that the Constitution is 200+ years old and the rights it guaranteed two centuries are no longer relevant today. Let's say that argument is viewed by Congress as correct and the 2nd Amendment is repealed.

 

No one is talking about repealing the second amendment, but you have to remember at the time it was written we were talking about Muskets. With the weapon systems we have today, I think there needs to be some clarification on what arms the second amendment actually protects. Arms today can mean anything from a knife to a nuclear bomb. So where do you draw the line? I don't think you want your next door neighbor having a nuke in their garage. So there has to be some clarification here. I think though to do this is going to take an amendment to the constitution not to abolish the right but to further clarify the type of arms it was intended to protect. Where that line is is up for debate!!

[Phillip Gallagher 101]

How many people changed their opinion on this issue after reading this far? Exactly, not one!