Had Enough

[RamonB 449]

And living next to a country that's flooding my state with illegal immigrant smugglers who arm themselves to the teeth to smuggle human bodies through, it is very much the wild west.

 

As John points out, when you have armies of smugglers coming over the border armed to the teeth and willing to shoot first, you are going to lose your argument very quickly.

 

Been only following this thread, as your Constitution is off limits to me as a foreigner.

 

But please, don’t drag us into your discussion.

Weapons come from the North, not the South!

 

“illegal immigrant smugglers who arm themselves to the teeth”, Yes, with weapons made in or sold in the USA.

 

Ask anyone down here, or up there where do they get their illegal weapons from?

(Hint: The friendly Arms Dealers. (Read the US and other countries, or US DOJ and/or the US ATF with its unscrupulous experiments.)

 

We have our own problems.

[pmanhart 176]

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.

 

This is what kills me about this entire 'assault-weapon' argument... The military uses fully-automatic rifles, not semi-automatic rifles! Automatic weapons are illegal to own and purchase without strict licensing provided by the government, and have been since the 1920s! Please let me outline this for those who may be ignorant of the differences:

 

Military "Assault" Weapon (i.e. M-16) = Automatic = Holding the trigger produces a constant or burst firing of the weapon.

 

Civilian "Assault" Rifle (i.e. AR-15) = Semi-Automatic = One pull of the trigger fires one bullet.

 

My first rifle was a Ruger 10-22, which I received when I was 12, and is a semi-automatic. A weapon being semi-automatic does not make it an assault weapon, it only means it does not have to be manually reloaded. If we are going to deem semi-automatics assault weapons based on the fact that they are used to assault something, then we might as well label fists, hammers, clubs, baseball bats, cars, concrete bricks and anything else that anyone has ever used to assault someone with as an "assault weapon".

[High Plains Flyer 35]

The second amendment is about Federalism. It does not create an individual right.

 

And yes, you are supporting the murder of little children. What happened at Sandy Hook, and Aurora, and Columbine, and all of those other places where deranged gunmen killed scores of innocent people is the fault of people like you who place their own desire to play with toys above the safety and well being of others.

[ubersu 78]

Looking at the arm waving and general carrying on in this thread, I have to ask if anyone has actually read the proposals issued by the adminstration? If so (you can find them point by point in the Washington Post 1-17-13), what are your real objections? You can find the definition of an 'assault weapon' as defined in the 1994 law in the Wikipedia article. The most extreme modification to that ban that has been kicked around is to change that definition to categorize using one additional criterion rather than two. You should also note that any law must be passed by the Congress and cannot be enacted by the Executive (which makes no claim otherwise). Note that firearms have been regulated to one extent or the other in the US since the early part of the last century and that most such regulation has been accepted by the Supreme Court in test cases; also note that the 'Militia' clause has been found to have no bearing on the 'bear arms' clause by the Supreme Court. I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but I really would like to see precisely what you object to on the subject.

 

DJ

[pmanhart 176]

"The right to bear arms" is no longer a valid part of the American Constitution. The vast majority of the general public do not need projectile weapons. As someone else has already pointed out, you are not living in the Wild West anymore.

 

The Second Amendment is as valid a part of the American Constitution as the First Amendment. The Second Amendment is provided in order to ensure the citizens of the States can defend their life, liberty and property, no matter who they are defending it from (whether it be a burglar, murdering sociopath, or tyrannical government).

 

I've been saying all along that this distinct idea is purely an American ideal that is there to ensure the free peoples of the United States are afforded the ability to ensure their freedoms.

 

If someday your government were to decide it was going to take your life, liberty or property without provocation, you may wish that you had the protections we have here in the US. This is not an argument to say that the US is better than the UK, just pointing out the differences in Constitutional protection.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Been only following this thread, as your Constitution is off limits to me as a foreigner. But don’t blame it on us foreigners.

 

And please, don’t drag us into your discussion.

Weapons come from the North, not the South!

 

“illegal immigrant smugglers who arm themselves to the teeth”, Yes, with made in or sold in the USA weapons.

 

Ask anyone down here where do they get their illegal weapons from?

(Hint: The friendly Arms Dealers. (Read the US and others, or DOJ and/or the ATF with its unscrupulous experiments.)

 

Where the arms comes from (in this discussion) is irrelevant. The fact that the human and drug smugglers are willing to use them IS the point.

[pmanhart 176]

That is not entirely accurate. You are more likely o be killed if you have a gun. And, more likely by your own gun. For home protection, the safest use of gun is an unloaded shotgun. Racking one produces a distinctive and will have an intruder jumping out the nearest window. And there isn't any chance of you accidentally killing yourself or a loved one.

 

I have to throw my BS flag on this ridiculous statement. The only way you can come to that conclusion is if you contend that gun-suicides are accidents.

 

You are more likely to die if you own a gun is pure nonsense.

[simmerhead 885]

You need to read the news coming out of the U.S. a little closer Chris. The west today in the U.S. is arguably as wild as the west was of the 1800's. As John points out, when you have armies of smugglers coming over the border armed to the teeth and willing to shoot first, you are going to lose your argument very quickly. You do not have that problem in the U.K. (or you didn't when I was there last in 2011) unless drastic changes have taken place.

 

You probably weren't in Belfast then I guess... Lots of worrying news from that corner of the union these days.

 

But yeah, the US Southwest is really a scary place. Mexico is out of control looking to become the "new" Colombia.

[RamonB 449]

Where the arms comes from (in this discussion) is irrelevant. The fact that the human and drug smugglers are willing to use them IS the point.

 

Sorry Tom, but where the arms come from is relevant to me (There is a nasty saying here that reads: "We put the dead, you put the guns". And your statement referred to over the border AKA Mexicans “illegal immigrants” only, you didn’t encompass the thousands of USA born and bred gangs and drug traffickers.

 

The point is that no matter where those people come from (USA or foreigners), they are willing to use them. And from what I read here and knew beforehand that includes law abiding people as well as other "human and drug smugglers".

 

Again: This was not my discussion and I shall refrain from ousting further opinion.

[pmanhart 176]

The second amendment is about Federalism. It does not create an individual right.

 

Wrong, though I'm eager to hear why you think that.

 

And yes, you are supporting the murder of little children. What happened at Sandy Hook, and Aurora, and Columbine, and all of those other places where deranged gunmen killed scores of innocent people is the fault of people like you who place their own desire to play with toys above the safety and well being of others.

 

First of all, by you saying that I am supporting the murder of little children is distasteful and shows you have little to contribute to the conversation other than finger-pointing and name-calling.

 

Second, guns are not toys, and any responsible gun-owner will tell you that. My children, ages 10 and 6, will also tell you that.

 

Third, taking away my firearms would not have stopped Sandy Hook, Aurora or Columbine. However, if I would have been at any of these tragic events with one of my firearms, I would not hesitate to put my life at risk trying to stop the shooter(s). I would be willing to say that most of my other fellow gunowners feel the same way.

 

Lastly, if you think that we gun owners aren't saddened and distgusted by mass-shootings and killings you are absolutely wrong. We are just as mortified as you.

[XPX64man 130]

My first rifle was a Ruger 10-22, which I received when I was 12, and is a semi-automatic. A weapon being semi-automatic does not make it an assault weapon, it only means it does not have to be manually reloaded. If we are going to deem semi-automatics assault weapons based on the fact that they are used to assault something, then we might as well label fists, hammers, clubs, baseball bats, cars, concrete bricks and anything else that anyone has ever used to assault someone with as an "assault weapon".

 

Once again, I will repeat, for the third time....fists, hammers, clubs, baseball bats..etc. were not designed to kill people. They have a passive primary use that can be morphed into a weapon by a deranged individual. An automobile was not designed to kill, it is designed for transportation.

A civilian or military assault weapon is designed to kill as many people as possible, in the shortest time possible. They have no other use.

It is totally illogical and irrational to think that they are necessary for personal protection when it is very rare that any one average citizen would be attacked by more than thirty people at a time.

Yet the chance of a weapon like this falling into the wrong (neurotic, unstable or immature) hands, when it is left in an individual's home, is astronomical. Just the fact that they are so available, takes the rights away from other peaceful citizens.

[razorhog703 15]

The second amendment is about Federalism. It does not create an individual right.

 

And yes, you are supporting the murder of little children. What happened at Sandy Hook, and Aurora, and Columbine, and all of those other places where deranged gunmen killed scores of innocent people is the fault of people like you who place their own desire to play with toys above the safety and well being of others.

 

This comment is not appreciated. I am a gun owner, not a deranged gunman. Please state your own opinion without bashing others for theirs. Thanks.

[XPX64man 130]

Third, taking away my firearms would not have stopped Sandy Hook, Aurora or Columbine.

 

No, but taking the assault weapons that were available to those unstable individuals, would have.

[xplanery 250]

If someday your government were to decide it was going to take your life, liberty or property without provocation, you may wish that you had the protections we have here in the US. This is not an argument to say that the US is better than the UK, just pointing out the differences in Constitutional protection.

I think owning an assault rifle won't keep you alive long if the government would for some reason really want you dead, I'm pretty sure CIA has done loads of way harder things than killing sole armed civilian. And obviously law and whatever it says won't protect you either if your opponent is the government.

 

Though then I agree people should definitely be allowed to defend their life and property with any means necessary, and that's something I would like to see in here Finland too.

 

An example how messed up law system we have here:

 

Two guys with batons approached a man and meant to beat him. That man first tried to talk to them and later fled to some building. As they kept following and didn't stop he finally shot those two guys with a pistol, slightly injuring them.

 

The guy with a pistol got a jail sentence. In this case all of these men were criminals though, but you get the idea, according our laws it seems like you can't defend yourself using a gun until you are half dead, and that sucks, not that I would care about what the law says if I got attacked.

[747-fan 19]

Wow how did people who support gun control become communists and how did people who are opposed to gun control become responsible for Sandy Hook etc?

 

A bit fewer straw men arguments would go a long way to make it a more constructive debate.

 

I for one am facinated by the US "right to bear arms" legislation. Can someone tell me more about the "regulated militia" part of that law?