2nd amendment supporters

That's one I sure haven't been able to figure out. Maybe look to the usual---$$$$$$$$$. But I can't figure it out. Doesn't add up. Seems insane to be against it.

 

the right to bear arms has nothing to do with 'defending yourself against barry obama'. the best defence against ol' barry is the law.

the best defence against gangbangers shooting up your house... is the law.

...now if you've got a problem with your law and law enforcement that's a totlly different issue.

i mean, seriously, the whole nsa snooping thing... how you gonna stop that with an automatic rifle? are you likely to have a better chance with 20 automatic rifles?

it's a silly debate (no offense to the people who've been killed - i don't mean silly in that way) it's a distraction, an emotive button-presser, 'yeah yeehaw, the damn government and liberals trying to stop me doing stuff i want' - while the corporations who promote and benefit from the pro gun laws screw you UP THE ASS.

at least in my humble opinion.

[Edit and crime is not "still rampant in the UK". And personally, I trust the police to protect me and my home. There's an issue about what happens if I go out and protest stuff, there's issues about other areas of policing, but in terms of crime against people's homes, the police are generally pretty good. They ain't ever going to be perfect, that's why we need to remain eternally vigilant, but generally, generally they're not bad. And I am grateful for that.]

[Second edit. I am aware that there's a different culture of people's relationships with society and the state in the UK and the USA and a different culture of rights and responsibilities... it's one of the problems we Brits have understanding why a lot of Americans get so very angry at the idea anyone's going to take their guns off them.]

 

And the law doesn't get there in time, and I am killed, my gun protects me, and that is my humble opinion. because in america, half the time the cops don't show up in enough time, oh and let me get this straight...they can shoot someone to defend me....but I can't do it myself, that is my humble opinon

 

I support it, and someone who owns guns. I'm a collector. I have a FFL. My collection also includes assault rifles. I understand peoples problems with it. Guns need to be harder to get into hands that don't need it. I have been trained to use these guns. (Military).

 

Yeah the Hippies in the Haight were armed to the teeth, including the grateful dead, they loved guns

 

well the cops have a different burden of responsibility, but in truth i'd never argue against your right to protect your own life by shooting someone who threatened your life.

but 'half the time the cops don't show up in time' is a problem with the cops.

but the biggest problem (and i think this is the main problem in most debates over society's problems) is culture. there's a culture of screw everyone else, i want i want i want. the ruthlessness of criminality is a totally different level in the states to here in the uk. and that leads to decent people like you feeling like they have to be just as ruthless.

it's a whole society problem, investing more in urban regen projects, EDUCATION in the poorest areas, ensuring their are more and better paid jobs, making sure there are more and better trained police, universal health care, doing more to stop young poor men becoming involved in gangs and violent crime in the first place - all of which could only be paid for by rasing taxes on the wealthiest in US society...

...if (IFIFIF)...

...and this isn't a 'my country's better than yours' thing - the UK is screwed up too in all sorts of ways, and me I'd love to live in the States...

...it's just about the guns thing.

...but your right to shoot someone who was threatening your life, is that a justification for having heavy calibre weaponry such as machine guns?

 

Wooo,No need to get into name calling cuz. Your contradictions mount up. Not advocating violence but...and the US Armed forces have a deterence effect too given the earlier list of attacks on US citizens liberties your people have suffered,financial crashes,lost jobs,homes,Cities declared Bankrupt & vacated by half their populations,yet no sign of liberties being defended then,but the merest hint of gun reform...Do YOU see what IM getting at?
You are no threat at all,were you so do you think they allow you to be armed still? They know you won't overthrow any tyrant,defend any liberty because they've done far worse & got away with it. Look at my exchange with Scratcho,he believes in the 2nd Ammendment but he sees the bigger picture too.

I take your point about deterence but what if the US did take guns off the streets,that they were no so easily had by criminals (admittedly its estimated that this might take 20 years).

 

I can see where you're coming from. It's a tough problem.

But the whole thing about gunning up is a spiral. You have a gun, a criminal gets two guns. You get a semi-auto. A crim gets an auto.

Eventually it's machine guns and rocket launchers - IF everyone, criminals and citizens, are left to sort their problems out between themselves.

Which is an argument for goverment intervention - state authorities are the best bodies to deal with the issue of preventing armed criminals terrorising citizens.

This is ALL predicated on a democratically representative state and accountable state authorities! And for me, that's the problem right there - with pretty much every nation. UK is definitely under a corporate dictatorship, although FOR NOW I trust the police and judiciary... the bank-owned government has already begun to privatise them (ie sell them off to corporate interests).

So the first thing we all need to do is reclaim our states, politically.

So... er... off you go. Let me know when you're done.

 

I think that this was a very valid question that no one has yet answered. I'd only add that surely it would be in everyones interest ,including the Gun Lobby, to establish good background checks to try to ensure that nutjobs do not have access to lethal weapons?

 

Also keep in mind that in a poll 95% of the enlisted military said they would not obey an unconstitutional order or an order to disarm, or harm the american people. Including ALL SPECIAL FORCES .

so 95% of the military would be on our side, including all the special forces, kind of hard to defeat a rebellion with only 5% of your strength and 0% special forces. Although I think that a domestic deal is highly unlikely, I think more likely it would be an EMP , and a foreign military would use that as an advantage and invade us, or already have people planted here ( look at the terrorist organization la raza and the cartels) they would then do some type of military control like in egypt, and then our military and the citizens would be fighting the foreigners that would currently be in control


When i become a united states military member i will be taking a vow to protect the united states citizens and constitution from all threats foreign and domestic, and in said oath if an order is unconstitutional, they can not throw me in the brig or say I didn't follow an order. But I highly doubt that our government will try to do something like that, like one in a bazillion, I think it is highly likely we could be invaded

 

We already do have background checks....

 

What then? Ive heard that in some states its down to showing a Drivers Licence. One chap in Florida bought a pump action shotgun, with ammo, at an arms faire in a school gym no questions asked-at all.

 

Don't hold you're breath on that one !

 

We've had background checks for quite a while, but it just doesn't keep the proverbial "nutjobs" from getting lethal weapons if they really want them, and that's the thing, nothing does. There are long standing gun bans in New York City, Chicago, and Washington D.C., and all still have high rates of gun violence. In the end, it's the law abiding citizens that suffer the punishment, while the criminal element continues to carry on as always. There is always a way around every obstacle you place in front of criminals, and they are very good at getting around them.

EDIT: It's not the guns that are the problem, gun violence is a symptom of something much worse, but nobody wants to tackle that.

 

I wholey agree, great job at putting my opinion into better words

 

And that problem would be what specifically?

If you say it's a cultural problem, you can't legislate your way out of that and anybody who tries who most likely involve some legislation that violates the 1st Amendment.

Guns and ammo are the tools in which people get killed, and while it is indeed a person who loses themselves in a fit of passion (anger or rage in most cases) to commit these acts. Backround checks deal with the people not guns in of themselves.

The Constitution itself already acknowledges the fact that if one is convicted of a crime, they have redacted rights at that point, and it's perfectly legal.

And nobody is saying that if backround checks are implemented it means that gun violence will stop, this is not a counterargument the pro-gun groups can say because nobody is arguing this.

 

Background checks won't get all of the crazies is my point. Also I don't know about you but misdiagnosis is rampant in this country. I have been misdiagnosed several time and put on drugs that made me have increase agression causing further misdiagnosis. This could cause one to be barred form owning a gun, when it is a clear case of misdiagnosis, thankfully I have found a psychiatrist who has rediagnosed me, because I do not show the consistant symptoms of what i was diagnosed with and he is weaning me off medication

 

For example if you don't trust the government, one could brand you with a paranoia disorder and BAM they take away your guns, is what some people feel I guess