The 2nd Amendment

Bal,

Don't always believe everything you read on the Internet.

Where my guns are is irrelevant.

Is it bad for the society they are in?

Which society are you talking about? The attitudes and mentality of those I know who own guns and/or are supportive of the 2nd amendment have no negative effect at all on society.

Are you the only person allowed to ask questions? Perhaps what you promote as explanations are not as founded in fact as you seem to feel they are, which leads others to question them. You put too much effort into trying to produce a single acceptable answer, your own, to every issue.

As far a the 2nd amendment goes, "the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is a right, not a requirement. The use to which those Arms are put to use is an entirely different matter. Take note, that is an answer, not a question.

 

Indie

What?

Why are you talking about those guns, are they with you in Laos or are they in the US?

I’ve explained at length why I think so.

I’m talking about US society are you talking about Laos society?

In Laos or the US? Why are they supportive of the US’s 2nd amendment while living in Laos? If they are in the US how do you know if you are in Laos?

No but with you I seem to be the only one answering them.

Then give a rational and reasonable counter argument, rather than just saying I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong.

But to who’s question? I don’t believe it is one of mine.

 

1. Just that.

2. Where my guns are is irrelevant to the issue, the 2nd amendment.

3. While I and others have explained at length why we disagree.

4. I've always been talking relevant to the U.S., which is NOT a single society as you seem to imply, but many societies with many differing political views as well as many similar political views.

5. You brought up Laos, not me.

6. I have done nothing but answer in this post, and you seem to have a problem accepting anyones answers unless they agree with you.

7. Read #6 again.

8. At least it pertains to the thread topic, not "where do you live?", "where are your guns kept?", etc.

 

Indie

What??

But if they are in Laos they are not part of the 2nd amendment debate, they would be about Laos’ gun control.

Where, can you actually point to where, I mean you have claimed this kind of thing before and have been completely unable, can you now?

So its relevant to the United States of America but not relevant to the USA?
Again WHAT?

Are you still living there? Because if you are - talking about your guns under the US’s second amendment wouldn’t be relevant if you had them under Laos gun controls. While if your guns are in the US and you are in Laos then to use your 2A right you’d need to travel to the US. Which again makes me wonder why you brought your guns up and why you thought them relevant.

 

Now that's just moronic propaganda.

 

1. Don't always believe everything you read on the Internet. Poor eyesight, eh? Is that better?

2. I'm glad to see you recognize that, and perhaps you might now forget about the guns I or others may own or where they are located, and concentrate instead on the 2nd amendment, which is a right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution regardless of whether or not you own a gun.

3. Go back and reread previous posts.

4. What are you talking about?

5. We're talking about the 2nd amendment, NOT where I live which, as has been explained, is a right guaranteed under our Constitution. My guns were mentioned in response to your incessant regurgitation of the word "fear" as the reason people own guns, which even if it were true would be irrelevant in discussion about the 2nd amendment. The rights we are free to exercise may vary depending on where we happen to be at a point in time, and you have no problem giving up your right to keep and bear Arms, I'm fine with that, and each and every law abiding individual living in the U.S.A. has, and should retain the right to choose to do the same if they wish. Like I said previously, it is not a requirement but only a right.

 

[FONT=&quot]Indie[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And it doesn’t make any more sense in bold – what are you talking about? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But as said if people were not so frightened of the society they live in they probably wouldn’t have a gun to protect themselves. [/FONT]

 

1. I was talking about what you posted, which was off topic to begin with.

2. You seem to be hung up on the "fear" tactic, which I presume you will believe no matter what anyone tells you. I believe I told you in a post long ago in another thread that I carried a gun when I was working nights in an area with a high crime rate, and had on occasion put it to use, although I never had to fire a shot. When the possible dangers are known in advance, are you claiming one should not take precautions and if they do then it is a result of fear, and that is wrong? But even if we lived in a utopian socialist society with no crime at all, I would still enjoy collecting guns, especially those that are old and one of a kind.

Growing up a friends father owned a water cooled machine gun, I believe from WWI, many civil war rifles, pistols, uniforms, swords, sabers, and other civil war and WWII artifacts. I guess you would think of him as totally frightened?

 

Old joke...


Cop pulls a guy over for a random license check. Cop notices the guy has a CCW in his wallet.

Sir are you carrying a firearm?

Yes I am. I have a 45 in a shoulder holster and a 38 special in an ankle holster.

Cop frowns.

Any other guns, sir?

Yes, I have a 357 in the glove compartment.

Is that all, sir?


No. I have a Remington 1100 shotgun in the trunk and an AR15 under the backseat.

That's quite an arsenal, sir. Just what are you afraid of?

Not a damn' thing, officer....

 

Edit: nevermind.

 

So banning firearms increases your safety?

 

Indie

That reply just makes me think you don’t even know what you are talking about because I sure as hell don’t.

I’ve presented a theory the thing is that no body seems able to produce a rational and reasonable counter argument OH I do have a lot of people telling me I’m wrong because they think I’m wrong but that as I keep explaining isn’t a rational and reasonable argument.

Look at this paragraph – You fear harm so you arm yourself with a lethal weapon to protect yourself from the risk of that harm, fine but if you didn’t fear the harm you probably wouldn’t feel the need to be armed with a gun weapon to protect yourself from the risk of that harm.
You talk of a high crime rate area, but why did it have a high crime rate and what were the type of crimes been committed.

Fine, as I’ve said I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning guns, I think there should be strong regulation in place and I worry about a society where people feel they need guns out of a sense of fear.

Why? Did he have them to defend himself against criminals or the government or was he a collector who had them for their historical interest?

 

Green

The implication being that the person with the CCW isn’t frightened because he has all those guns, meaning he would be frightened without them - so the reason he has them is to alleviate his fear.

Wouldn’t it be better to live in a society where he didn’t feel so frightened that he felt he needed all those guns?

 

Indie

This was a propaganda piece from World War 2, its over 70 years old.

OK here is a reply to the ‘American Committee for Defense of British Homes’ by 4(T) at the Army Rumour Service

 

1. You posted what you appear to believe is how gun laws are enforced in Laos, which may indeed be a somewhat close translation of the written law, but none the less is not always how the laws are applied.

2. Well, fear may be a reason that some persons purchase a weapon, or even lock their doors and windows at night or when away. But you attempt to promote that as the single reason which is not true in each and every case, as several persons have explained to you. As I pointed out, I have some guns which would serve no defensive purpose other than to hit someone with as they are difficult and time consuming to aim and/or fire. Have you ever fired a matchlock, or a blunderbuss? I have and would not even think of using one for protection. Even if fear was the explanation for 100% of the weapons owned, which I do not believe, what has that to do with the 2nd amendment?

3. When a friend and I used to go fishing and camping deep in a heavily wooded area, we also used to carry guns with us as there were snakes. So I guess you would say we were afraid of being bitten by snakes.
The high crime area I was working in at the time was also where drugs were bought and sold, and I would conclude that those who lacked the money to purchase the drugs looked for someone to provide them with the means. Four cases I am familiar with are, one co-worker was abducted when he went to get some food for us, stripped of all his belongings, clothes, and money, dumped along the expressway, and later picked up by the police after a motorist called 911 complaining of a naked man on the road, but fearful of stopping. A second case is another co-worker who was robbed going to his car in a parking garage, beaten severely and robbed. A third case was a female worker who was robbed and stabbed to death in the parking garage. And a fourth case involved no one being harmed, but watching from the 5th floor cars being broken into, one of which belonged to a co-worker who called me to look, and then noticed that his vehicle was one being broken into. I personally experienced 2 confrontations in which displaying my gun quickly put an end to, and no one was harmed.

4. For some it may be a need and for others it may be simply a want to own a gun, or guns. In either case it is a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

5. I think it should be clear he was a collector. Many guns have value to collectors, but could also be employed for protection if the need were to arise. So would you imply that collectors should only be allowed to have guns which could not be used for protection?

In the end, for what ever non criminal purpose a gun is desired, protection, hunting, target shooting, etc., the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of ownership. If fear is a reason, so be it, it's none the less a valid reason.

 

Be thankful, you are still able to converse in English language for the time being.

 

No. Tack on giving citizens the tools to resist possible government tyranny.

 

Indie

Are you saying you are keeping gun in Laos in breach of those written laws? I’m unsure why you are making such a big think about this?

I think you haven’t read my posts – I do not ‘promote that as the single reason’ maybe you should read what I actually say rather than just what you think I’ve said.

Again you clearly haven’t been listening to what I’ve said. And yes I have fired a English Civil War musket.

If there were no snakes or if there were no dangerous snakes would you have feared been harmed by the snakes?

Protection from what?

But I’m asking why not work toward having a society where people were not so frightened that they felt they needed a gun for protect.