The 2nd Amendment

[FONT=&quot]Odon[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So basically you have little or nothing to actually contribute to the debate except it seems that you dislike me asking questions?[/FONT]

 

*sigh*

 

You can lead a horse to water, odon. You can't make it drink though.

 

To be fair, I would like to see a Youtube video of you getting to your gun-safe in five seconds. Is that getting to, or getting to and getting hold of your gun?
Seriously, I know what you mean.

 

That is me reaching down from my bed, entering my code, and gripping the pistol. That is going one one thousand, two one thousand, and so on.

 

Thanks for the clarity. That's remarkable.

 

Granted, getting to will take longer depending on where in my place I am coming from. But, once I am at the safe, 5 seconds.

 

That's more likely.

 

If sig is fearful for having guns in a safe that he can open in 5 seconds, what does that make me for having an unlocked pistol in my nightstand?

 

More prepared for the unexpected should the need of a gun become necessary.

No amount of government can totally eliminate crime or provide full time protection for the life and property of each and every individual, therefore the 2nd amendment recognizes the fact that the first line of defense resides with, and is not to be deprived of the individual.
There are occasions, albeit infrequent, where a gun is the ONLY tool appropriate for the task at hand.

If ever a point in time occurs where all governments can eliminate their need and possession of weapons, then I think ordinary citizens might be more willing to eliminate theirs, although they should never be compelled to.

Like the 1st amendment, it is the use to which our rights are put which laws are created to expound on what is considered to be a misuse, and prosecutable under the law.

 

So, it has come out today that Nixon wished to ban all handguns.

Richard Nixon Wished for Total Handgun Ban

 

ok?

 

Odon

So basically you have little or nothing to actually contribute to the debate except it seems that you dislike me asking questions?

Sorry was in hast and didn’t make myself clear - the point I’m making is that you have accepted the argument that gun ownership for defence is not motivated in any shape or form by fear, which is fine. I on the other hand am not convinced, which should also be fine.

What doesn’t seem fine to me is that you are attacking me for not accepting what you have accepted and are basically telling me to stop asking questions or pointing out what I see as flaws in the ‘no fear’ argument.

That you seem to have little to contribute beyond just telling me I’m wrong.

[FONT=&amp][/FONT]

 

And again statements that seem to back up what I’ve been saying.

Fear of the unexpected attack that would ‘necessitate’ the use of a lethal weapon. If someone didn’t fear such an attack would they feel that having a lethal weapon was ‘necessary’?

‘For the life’ for many it seem the threat is so grave as to be life threatening. If people didn’t fear for their very life would they feel that having a lethal weapon was ‘necessary’?


And again the wording ‘every individual’ and ‘the first line of defense’ to me crime is more of a social problem tackled by communal policies, as argued too much of an individual outlook can mean that is overlooked or ignored.

But it seems to me that if people within a society are so fearful of crime that they feel they need guns to protect themselves from it that the policies in place to tackle crime are failing, and to me then wouldn’t the best thing be to look at those policies rather than relying on having a lethal weapon?

Having a lethal weapon is the ONLY thing that will save your life. But if people didn’t fear for their very life would they feel that having such a lethal weapon was ‘necessary’?

The hint that armed citizen are what stand against government tyranny.

Well we have already had at least one person that seemed to support persecution under a Sedition Act that curtailed the 1st amendment. And Individual supports the persecution of people for their political ideas.

 

How did the thread topic become changed from a right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment into "Fear"?

Many of my guns would have no protective use at all, and some of them are just a source of the wealth I possess as they are quite sought after by collectors who appreciate fine craftsmanship.

Why do you fear guns so much?

Bal, you seem to go out of your way to try and persecute those who disagree with your views.

 

Odon

Did you see – Panorama?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01r1wcn/Panorama_Americas_Gun_Addiction/

 

indie

Are you still living in Loas?

-

In Laos, only licensed gun owners (for those of high social standing only) may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition
Genuine Reason Required for Firearm Licence

Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Laos are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting
Gun Owner Background Checks

An applicant for a firearm licence in Laos must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental, medical and domestic violence records
Domestic Violence and Firearms

Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Laos stipulates that a gun licence should be denied or revoked
Firearm Safety Training

In Laos, an understanding of firearm safety and the law, tested in a theoretical and/or practical training course is required for a firearm licence
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/laos

Oh this old chestnut, it about trying to suggest that anyone that asks questions about US gun ownership is only doing it because they ‘fear’ guns.

As I’ve pointed out I used to be a member of a gun club when I was younger and a reasonably good shot.

But the thing is that I don’t fear crime or being hurt, I’m so unafraid that I don’t feel I need a lethal weapon to protect myself from harm. Why are so many in the US seemly so fearful that they think they need a gun to protect themselves from harm?

I’m saying that it seems to me that if people within a society are so fearful of crime that they feel they need guns to protect themselves from it that the policies in place to tackle crime are failing, and to me then wouldn’t the best thing be to look at those policies rather than relying on having a lethal weapon?

 

Indie

I think I’ve explained this before – the point I’m making is that many pro-gunners seem to us ‘fear’ as a way of defending (and promote) the supposed ‘right’ to have guns, fear of crime and fear of ‘government’. I’m suggesting that if people were not so afraid they might not feel they needed such legal weaponry.

It also seems to me that the pro-gun stance is just a symptom of wider attitudes and mentality.

 

Bal,

Where I live has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

So lacking any fear, what's your interest in the ability of others to possess a weapon, if they wish, for what ever reason they wish as long as it is not criminal?

 

Indie

I wonder why you defend the US 2nd amendment but choose to live in a country with what that website describes as restrictive gun control. Do you have those guns with you?

It might not be criminal but is it good for the society they are in? As I’ve explained the attitudes and mentality that so often seem to give rise to a pro-gun stance don’t seem very good for a society.

*

I notice you are once again asking questions but never seemingly answering them.