Defend the Second Amendment!

And I am saying that guns is one perceived method of preserving the peace by rule of law. It is not a matter of whether or not the law may be brutal the element of suspicion is enough to lead to brutality and the reliance on rule of law to enforce civility abrogates the need for people themselves to learn to be civil because they can rely on courts to settle disputes which while awarding judgement does not forstall bad feelings and a loss of a sense of community.

 

OK, I want hand grenades, napalm, and some C-3 then...maybe a bag fulla land mines, a rocket launcher and flamethrower too.

Of course, thats all just to back up my AR and 1911 colt .45 {{rolls eyes}}

 

^
Flamethrowers have always been legal to own. They are used to burn slash piles.

 

I don't think so, not where I live anyway, and there are a lot of slashpiles burned here in the national forest. Not as much as they used to, as loggings been in a slump since the housing crash. I've been on a few slash pile crews and I know what you're talking about. Those aren't military style flamethrowers. I was being facetious anyway, listing ridiculous weapons that should be protected by the second amendment if we're ever to have a chance against a tyrannical govt. ya know? Ahh just forget it, they have lasers, drones and germs.

 

I find it disappointing when trying to discuss guns in the US in the seemingly limited arguments put forward by pro-gunners - as I’ve said they often seem like they are more interested in trying to sell guns or make sure guns can be bought and sold with little restraint than they do in trying to look more deeply into the issues surrounding gun ownership.

 

I've noticed that most people who feel strongly about supporting the Second Amendment don't really care about the U.S. Constitution. They don't stand up for the Fourth or Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments, for instance. They just want their penis extensions, oops I mean guns.

 

[SIZE=12pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Personal Protection[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]In the many conversations I’ve had with pro-gunners over the years the idea of owning them for personal protection has been frequent mentioned-[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And why not, that is one possible use for a gun out of many. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]for hunting yes but defiantly not as much and for competitive sport target shooting not so much. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I’ve been here nearly 15 years and the gun issue comes up frequently[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Okay[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt] so there are many threads and if you want links I can give you them. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I imagine so but no thanks.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Also my observation here seem to be backed from studies like this one from the Pew Research Center –[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]A national survey finds that nearly half of gun owners (48%) volunteer that the main reason they own a gun is for protection; just 32% say they have a gun primarily for hunting and even fewer cite other reasons, such as target shooting. [my bold][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As you like to say; “Thank you for backing me up.” Less than half of gun owners (48%) say their main reason for owning a gun is for protection, that means (52%) over half of gun owners say the main reason they own guns is something other than protection.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And when you factor in - one of the reasons - rather than just ‘the main’ then the figure goes even higher.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Glass is half empty or half full? When you factor in - one of the reasons - rather than just ‘the main’ then the figure evens out. Because many of those who say their main reason for ownership is protection also have other reasons for gun ownership.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Thing is that I’ve highlighted this observation many times and linked to examples of it, it’s not a new discussion. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Yep, you just continue to fail to listen to the discussion going on.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I said - “people who say they have guns for personal protection seem motivated by fear.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]So? People fear many things fire, storms, earthquakes, etc. but I don’t hear you riling about people buying fire extinguishers, building storm shelters, moving away from earthquake areas or wearing seat belts out of fear.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You reply - (if you are talking about people that only own guns for personal protection, then there may very well an element of fear in their ownership as you next point out)”[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Thank you for backing me up. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Thanks for not listening.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Threat[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Quote[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Are you really this naive or are you just ignoring the truth to make your "reasoning" sound reasonable. There are "frightening things" in this world, do you really think they don't exist or are going away anytime soon?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]No one I know feels so unsafe they think they need a weapon to hand just in case let alone something as powerful and lethal as a modern handgun.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again you somehow think that Americans feel unsafe and think they need a weapon and again I point out this is not the case. I don’t feel unsafe in my car yet I wear a seat belt. I don’t feel unsafe in my apartment yet I have a smoke alarm.[/SIZE]



[SIZE=12pt]Socio-economic problems[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Quote[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]owning a gun does not in any way prevent that person from thinking about improving the society they live in, as you keep implying.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]This has been discussed many times the results have been unclear because many pro-gunners seem reluctant to debate it openly and honestly usually reverting to ‘that’s not true’ – ‘that silly’ or the ‘you’re wrong’ kind of comeback which I have to keep pointing out is not a rational counter argument. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]A lot like my having to keep pointing out you’re continually just saying it’s true is not a rational counter argument.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]In many cases if is clear they haven’t given such things much though and some like Paw admit they haven’t. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]So? Even if there are some who haven't given such things much thought, assuming that that is the national attitude is leaping to conclusions that have little or no backing.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I really would like to discuss this more sensibly. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]So far I have not seen you “discuss” anything, let alone sensibly. Your idea of a discussion seems to be a one sided diatribe rather than a sensible exchange of ideas, a discussion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Quote[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]In fact it seems that gun ownership has very little to do with solving social ills or not. If it did, it would seem the UK would have solved their social ills by now.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]As to your jib about the UK it seems to imply a -either/or -absolutist mentality something is either A or Z the bcdef etc are ignored, the thing is that many issues have shades and degree, they are not all black or white.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Doggies, this from someone who has, throughout this whole thread, made all his comments black and white. It is nice to know you have finally come to realize life is not as black and white as you have been portraying it.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again it is something that I’ve had to discuss many times thing is that the UK has its social and economic problems, but they are framed in a British context, and I’m very happy to discuss them again if you want, but here we are talking about the US and the gun issue in an American context. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Nice cop out.[/SIZE] [SIZE=12pt]Yes we are talking about the US and the gun issue in an American context but you keep implying that the US could easily solve all their social ills if only they got rid of all those nasty guns. That opens the door to look and see if a country who has gotten rid of all those nasty guns, like say the UK, has easily solved all their social ills. Well have they?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And as I’ve explained many times in my view the American desire for guns seems like a symptom of a wider mentality and set of attitudes.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I think everyone knows that is what you keep saying and in part I agree with you. What I don’t agree with you on is what that “wider mentality and set of attitudes” is.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]To repeat –[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Nice theory but the truth is I don’t “accept threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control” and thus don’t allow “this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems” and of all the people I’ve met living in the US all my life, I’ve not met anyone else that feels that way, in fact quite the opposite.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Well seeing as I don’t have that attitude around me, it is hard to see this as true. As I see it the big problem you have, as I have pointed out to you, is you don’t know how big the US is. Honestly your lumping California and Georgia together is a little like me lumping the UK and the Ukraine together.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Yeah, like there’s no crime or political suppression in the world. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]This attitude can seemingly lead some into a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You say things like this as if it proves something. This is at best a hypothetical, where is the proof? Then you continue on like this;[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Assuming that your made up worldview is accepted as fact?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The real problem is your made up hypothetical[/SIZE] “American attitude” has no basis in fact and never has.

 

What a weird thing to say. What problem?

 

[SIZE=12pt]Bab[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Sorry but your posts these days seem more about rage than rationality and more about point scoring than point making.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again “you prove my point”. Rage? You just don’t listen do you. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]It seems more about wanting to hit out at someone whose views you don’t like and would want silenced. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Someone stands up to you and suddenly they're enraged and want hit out and silence you. Aren’t you the one that gets enraged and does the silencing?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]For example lets us take this outburst - you criticise me for wanting rational respectful debate saying[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I criticize you, not for “wanting rational respectful debate” but for not knowing what a rational respectful debate is. Let’s take a look my “enraged” “outburst”.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Quote[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]Now that's funny. Coming from a person that says the same things over and over again. You even send people to read your other posts so you don't even have to retype them. That's not "respectful free speak" and debate that is simple dogmatism and disrespectful as it comes.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]But as I’ve pointed out many times I often end up having to repeat myself because people don’t read the posts or ask me to repeat myself – I don’t want to do it I’d prefer the discussion move on.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Yes, you have pointed that out and repeatedly. Have you ever thought that maybe what you have said is not understandable and needs revision and that is why people don’t read your posts and ask you to repeat yourself?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Citing other posts, articles, reports etc that is normal practise in any debate if you don’t understand that I don’t think you understand what debate means.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]That’s fine. But have you ever thought about how disrespectful it seems when you demand that others leave a discussion to go and read your long diatribes in other threads?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]It seems to me that you are angry and calling me names because I won’t just accept what you say without question or criticism even when you seem unable to put up any rational defence of your point of view.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again, like most of your posts in this thread, you are making erroneous assumptions and trying to pretend like they are true. I’m not angry, not even close and don’t care whether you accept what I say or not or whether you question or criticize it or not. For me what would be nice is what you have called for “rational respectful” discussion.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]So please don’t just come back with some more vitriolic bluster but try to put together a logical and coherent counter argument and then we might be able to move the debate on.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Vitriolic bluster? Yep, I can see how saying something like “now that’s funny” could be considered “vitriolic bluster”, it’s not like your saying things like, “your posts these days seem more about rage than rationality and more about point scoring than point making”, that I’m “wanting to hit out at someone”, that I want you “silenced”, I’m just making “outbursts”, engaging in “vitriolic bluster” and I’m “angry and calling you names”(I like to see a list of those awful names) could be construed to be “vitriolic bluster”[/SIZE].

[SIZE=12pt]Okay, lay on Mcduff.[/SIZE]

 

The problem is the problem Balbus was talking about.

 

Fact is just because you don't see it that way doesn't mean it isn't seen that way by others, even americans. So what problem now?

 

Bears do not have the go-for-the-throat instinct that big cats do. Which means they tend to eat you alive.

Pepper spray only works if the wind is blowing away from you.

Yes, firearms can be quite scary, however, the absence of firearms can be scary. There is no easy answer. BTW, "The Atlantic" magazine once had a story titled "The False Promise of Gun Control". I recommend checking it out.

 

I never said it wasn't seen that way by others, even Americans. Still the same problem.

 

what is the problem

 

I don't have an AR15 or the desire to own one. I've shot one numerous times and it is a very nice rifle.

Why would I want to own an axe or a buck knife? They're weapons too

 

[SIZE=11pt]Old[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Sorry but your main counter argument still seems to be that I’m wrong because I’m wrong because you don’t like what I’ve said, and the other stuff seems to make it clear you haven’t actually read what’s been said (while ironically complaining it is often repeated).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’ve covered this type of argument many, many times (there is something on cars above in this thread) but let us by all means go through it again.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]People might fear storms if they live somewhere where they believe storms are dangerous and therefore might feel the need to build a storm shelter. People who live in places were storms are seen as not very dangerous probably wouldn’t feel they needed a storm shelter.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]if people stopped been so fearful of the society they live in they probably wouldn’t feel they needed at gun as protection against it[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Virtually all the things you mention are passive, storm shelter, seat belt, smoke alarm etc, they are not about threatening or inflicting pain or death on other human beings. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A lot of time and effort is spent trying to limit risk in such areas often involving laws and regulation. Fire regulations in buildings and for manufactured goods are about limiting the risk of fire, work and public places have more regulation attached to limit fire risk. I’ve been taught how to use a [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]fire extinguisher but the advice of fire fighters is to get out and leave it to the professional whenever possible and I don’t have one at home. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It is the same with cars with manufactures and regulators trying to find ways to limit the risks, (highway codes, license requirements, insurance etc) in the UK all traffic accidents are monitored and collated to see if for example there are any accident black spots so action can be taken to rectify any problems (traffic calming installing traffic lights cutting back vegetation etc). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]To me it often seems like pro-gunners don’t really want to limit the risks associated with a high level of gun ownership. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’ve never said that - I have however often said that [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]if people stopped been so fearful of the society they live in they probably wouldn’t feel they needed at gun as protection against it[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Have I lumped California and Georgia together can you point to the post where I do?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I have compared London to Philadelphia we have looked at the homicide rates per 100,000 of some places but…well I’m unsure what your augment is here? [/SIZE]

 

Are there many Bears living wild in such places as Philadelphia?

Here is what is recommended and it doesn’t involve guns -

http://adventure.howstuffworks.com/15-tips-for-surviving-a-bear-encounter.htm

An axe was designed to chop wood it could be used as a weapon but it was designed for other more passive usage. I carry a pen-knife, but not as a weapon, it can be useful in many passive ways from cutting up food to being a basic screwdriver.

A gun was designed to maim and kill human beings it can be used to kill and maim other things or to make holes in stuff or as a rudimentary club, but really apart from maiming and killing it doesn’t have that many other uses.

 

Whenever it comes up, I like to post this video I happened to capture of a bear encounter I had a coupla years ago...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FZAfwyk_HQ

 

The headline read- By 2016, the 1% will posses more wealth than the REST OF the population of the earth. Now, to get somewhere with that, let's hypothesize that EVERYONE that wanted a job had one and each job paid a living wage. People would not have to live in constant turmoil/strife, to merely
exist. People merely existing in a land of plenty are going to be more prone to having difficulty raising their children to be good citizens.
Those children will more than likely see and feel the helplessness of the situations in which their parents find themselves. The parents
MAY resort to the usual mind numbing solutions such as alcohol and drug addiction to deaden the feelings of the pervasive non-paticipation in
society. Instead of participation in the society, we live in a TV/internet world where all is wonderful with so much available for purchase
---except for them. Gangs, white and black, ghettoes, white and black,years and years of governmental neglect with welfare as a stop-gap
measure to keep those that get it--juuuuust on the edge of completely going under. That's about all that keeps the poor from tearing the whole place down. They're helpless to join in--in any meaningful way, so criminality arises with all the attendant problems, such as robbery, murder
and the rest of what befalls citizens in a lawless society.

In a way--I don't blame those who take what is not theirs. Those who get so angry that they eventually commit horrible crimes. They need punishment for sure----but let's not assume , as some do--that people are born angry and criminal. (with the exception of those with faulty brain wiring.) Children can be made to be and believe anything as they grow and absorb the realities of the surrounding society.

I blame the criminal reality manifested here to the hidden government and the government that we see before us, for the extreme inequalities
in our society---and therefore the criminality also.

Also therefore--I must protect my family from the results of government inaction. Words will not work against determined criminals.
And this, friends, is why I keep a firearm. I fire at nothing live-I do not hunt, but I want to protect me and mine( and yours, if necessary)
from the results of a government that can either fix the inequalities or keep paying the consequences of citizens shooting and harming one another. And frankly, I don't care one way or the other about the legality of, or the confusion regarding the the wording of second amendment.
You fish-you bring the proper tools. You roof--you bring the proper tools. You protect yourself from determined miscreants--you have the proper tool.

Do I wish guns did not exist? Yup. But they do. And there are those around that will use them--on you and me.

 

Here's to hoping you never have to use one.