Does anyone else enjoy shooting and collecting firearms? I know this isn't exactly a pro-gun place, but I know there has to be a couple people on here. Personally I look forward to when I establish residency in this state, and then I can finally get myself a couple longarms. I am a pretty pro second amendment and rights guy so I'm for everyone at least knowing gun safety if not how to shoot. I know this may not be popular so please don't flame if you disagree, this is primarily for those interested in this hobby.
I personally never understood the appeal to guns. I have never shot or even held a real gun. I've shot pellet guns, but never enjoyed them. I also considered myself a constituionalist and pro 2nd amendment. The problem with the 2nd amendment is the wording and interpretation. I read it as guns for militias with a military use; I've never read it as personal pleasure. One dead kid is one too many. I'm not talking about guns deaths from something like Columbine. Those murderers would've found a way to commit that atrocity even if guns were illegal. I'm tlaking about the kid that accidentally shoots their friend because their parents are dumbasses. My father owns guns but the were never of interest to me. I always thought if I were to ever hunt, I'd want to try it with a bow and arrow. I know this was a thread designed for those who share your passion, so I'm not flaming, just through out some discussion points my friend. I understand that everyone has their own interests and many wouldn't enjoy mine.
I understand where you're coming from completely Show. Personally I feel that guns should be more available so that tragedies like columbine and VT can be prevented. Also I find it negligible if any parent does not teach their kids how to handle a firearm if they have one in the house, and it should be locked up at all times unless the parent is present when the child is under 16. I like guns mainly b/c while I admit I find them cool; I really feel that the more good people who are armed the safer our society is. Without stating statistics, b/c I disbelieve virtually all statistics on the issue on both sides, it seems logical to me that the more good guys that have guns, the less bad guys can do to everyone for fear of someone having a gun. Also in most places where guns were completely banned the crime significantly rose, especially armed robberies. There was also a town in kennesaw that legally required every house to own at least one firearm...burglary and robbery type crimes dropped to virtually 0%.
I used to love guns. i have grown up around them and i was an expert shot at the ripe age of 11 however growing up around them has not been fun and games. the 1st time i seen someone get shot i was in 6th grade at my friends uncles house. since then i have seen 3 other shootings. and i know a lot of people whos lives have been affected by guns. obviously i know its not the guns that kill, its the person that kills. but the fact is any idiot can get a gun in this country. my ex boyfriend only has one eye because he was shot in the face. my weed dealer that ive known since 6th grade lost a leg due to infection from a gunshot wound, not to mention all the people that ive known over the years who are in the ground because of some other weak willed individual. AAAAAND my boo boo recently was shot in the face (hes fine) but it went in his face and out his neck and he needed extensive reconstructive surgury not to mention a new set of teeth. and even though he got fucking lucky he is still hurting more than i can imagine but enough sob stories. my point is GUNS IN THE HANDS OF STUPID PEOPLE=VIOLENCE and i hate violence. especially when it hits a lil too close to home. geez i hate this town. when people think theyre hard they do stupid shit
I'm a gun collector also huge into hunting. I have a license to carry & concelle a gun for self defense. I hunt with a 308 & carry my .380 semi automatic with me. The problems isn't guns, it's who's hands they end up in.
Ive shot a 12 gauge, .45, sniper rifle and by far my all time favorite Mac 10 9mm w/silencer. I also fired an Mp5. My freinds sister is head of the SWAT team in michigan so thats how I fired the Mp5. Other then that my dad has the 12 gauge and shit but my freind from another state had the mac 10 and that would pop back some mad recoil.
let's see I have a .357 smith & wesson that is loaded and stiiting behind me for protection. I have a carry permit (they are not called conceal and carry here as you have the right to both conceal or wear it in plain sight) as well. When I get back on my feet financially I will be expanding my collection. Also, when the daughter is old enough to understand I will teach her how to respect and use a firearm.
well the parents need to be responsible parents... they could accidently let their kid drown, get hit by a car, poisoned etc. if they do not consciously think about the risks of their actions and the potential actions of their kids. I personally have an interest in guns because of your interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. I think that the importance of owning a gun is for your protection and that includes your protection from the state.
i love guns, knives, any kinds of weapons. i just enjoy them, just like havin a metal machine in your hand that can cause such destruction (not against people just like shooting random shit like tvs and shit) i just like it i have since i was a lil kid
essentially i agree. the wording of the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution is almost identical to that of section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, though the VA constitution elaborates on that theme a bit more than in the US constitution. as far as i believe the united states is a legitimately founded country, i believe in the constitution that it adopted. its a magnificent work of political art...even though i might not like every specific thing thats been put in it or taken out, and even though i might not like the ways in which some others interpret it. further, "arms" does not denote firearms specifically. arms are weapons, not necesarily guns, rocket launchers and flame throwers. the second amendment does not garauntee paranoid apocolypse-obsessed freaks in compounds to rig their fields with landmines. the second amendment, read literally, says that the right to bear weapons shall not be infringed, not that people have the right to bear ALL weapons. in my opinion, if the government went so far as to ban all firearms for civilians, they could do so legally, so long as knives, arrows, axes and other bladed weapons are legal.....they are arms, they are means of violent force and quite lethal. suitable for offensive and defensive measures, all of them. i dont think such a scenario is likely ANYTIME in the foreseeable future, or at least not in the near future....but then i'm no fortuneteller. i like guns, i love shooting, and i like the fact that if i choose to, i have the right to go buy a gun legally and keep it in my home to protect myself and my dwelling. i drink and i occasionally trip, though, and i wouldnt like the idea of having a firearm around someone not in a clear state of mind, even if i think i'd almost surely be fine. i just dont think it would be wise for me to have one around. i also wouldnt want to have one if i lived with someone else, as accidents happen accidentally....even if you're careful, accidents happen. thats why they're not called "purposes." gun safety and proper handling is all important. i like guns, and i think that its a natural right to be able to arm oneself if done responsibily. i also think there is merit in the idea that two adults should be allowed to mutually agree to settling a difference with violence, but that such actions should be done formally and in the safest setting possible. in fact, i'd be a proponent of legalizing duels, i suppose. its a poor choice and i could never see myself acting in such a way, but i think it would severely reduce the number of deaths and injuries of innocent bystanders when fights break out in a public setting....of course not everyone would choose the legal option, but i think it might at least reduce the number of injuries and deaths of SOME potential innocents. people are going to fight regardless of what the law says, just like with drugs i feel there ought to be a focus on harm-reduction rather than 100% prohibition....but then again, most americans will STRONGLY disagree with this idea, but...well, i'm not a christian and i dont particularly value human life for the sake of life, and dont particularly value the life of humans over that of other animals, and basically am not very bothered by death of anyone i'm not very close to. to me death doesnt particularly scare me even though im in no rush to experience it, and death of someone i love only would bother me for missing them. i dont really pity the deceased, though i do pity the suffering. so long as one doesnt die in absolute agony, i dont find it very sad. its natural, and no one is promised a long life. its practically a role of the dice....but i digress.... i think people should be allowed to own guns. i am not entirely 100% anti-violence. i am in support of people being able to arm themselves and hopefully overthrow a corrupt government, should the need for violence make itself painfully clear. while i dont much like che guvera, i read somewhere that he said so long as even a phantom or illusion of democracy remained in a country, there is hope and violent uprising is innappropriate. i like that. i think the virginia constitution is about as close as we have to a window into the actual meaning of the second amendment. the idea that advocates of the amendment had was that the people, people trained in fighting and bearing arms in defense of the community, as a body of people made up of the community, were necessary in order for a community to defend itself. that we should not have a standing army in peacetime, to protect liberty and freedom. the idea was in opposition of having a regular army except when necessary in a time of war. it was not to garauntee any untrained, undisciplined civillian to own ANY type of weapon they want. i believe in the right to have guns. i dont believe the second amendment truly garauntees the right to guns. i could see a national ban on firearms as being interpreted as legal, some day in the future. the founding fathers were many, as were compromises in the wording of the constitution and the bill of rights. diplomacy was all important in uniting the states. there is no one intention of the founding fathers, every politician has their own agenda, and wishes to benefit themselves and those they represent. there was a terrible lot of disagreement and compromise in writing the constitution, but its what was agreed on and remains the law of the land until we decide to change it. original intent cannot be divined as ideas about what should happen were quite varied. only whats written may be taken for what it says. but if original intent is valid for anything at all, its the 2nd amendment. the virginia constitution clearly depicts the thinking that spawned the addition and change to the constitution that is the second amendment. i agree wholeheartedly. i would never own a gun in a house with a child or even a roommate or lover....accidents happen sometimes. of course i would be as careful as i could be if i ever choose to get a gun, but accidents are accidents. having a safe and a safety lock does not protect from all accidents. knowing how to safely use a gun is no protection from all accidents. i read in the news once of a young girl playing a practical joke on her parents. she told them she was to be sleeping over at a close friends home for the evening, and her parents agreed. hearing someone else in the house in the night, the father grabbed his gun. he had expected his daughter to be away for the evening, and his wife was beside him all night. hearing noises, he suspected a burglar. his daughter jumped out and scared him, and instinctively he shot her, and she died. he was charged with nothing, but the little girl will always be dead. safety precautions dont prevent all accidents. even responsible, law abiding people can fuck it all up. ditto. i'd say that in all honesty i love shooting, i think its really fun and i believe people should be allowed to arm themselves. and i do think that firearms should be legal, but perhaps not all firearms. i dont think the second amendment as it is worded inherently protects the right to own ANY weapon a civilian desires, and i dont think guns are garaunteed either. i think they should be, but they arent, and i would have no constitutional issue with a gun ban. i dont believe strongly at all in original intent, but i do believe that it is at least somewhat applicable in the case of the second ammendment, and i believe that it is one of the few parts of the constitution that clearly are connected to some original intention. i dont think it was intended to garauntee every jackass out there the right to own and bear ANY weapon they chose. i think it was intended to garauntee the right of WELL trained and responsible people to protect their community, even against their own government as had just been done in the revolt against england, if the need should ever again come around. anyway, guns are fun and we have a right to have them whether or not its actually garaunteed, but they cause a lot of problems and unnecessary strife, too. i think a lot of people have weapons when its irresponsible for them to own them (if they're mentally unsound or get fucked up too much, if they are in a home with kids, so on) i think a lot of people who dont know the first thing about gun safety should not be allowed to have guns (a handgun doesnt belong anyhwere near your crotch, and under your belt isnt an acceptable alternative to a holster or case. i dont really care about death, but it does hurt for the people surrounding the incident, and if that can be avoided it should be. if people feel no alternative to violent resolution of their issues will do, i think violence is a natural human behavior in some instances, and i dont think there should be total prohibition of violent behavior. i do believe two people should be allowed to fight each other if necessary, so long as they do so in as safe a manner as possible for any bystanders, and in an appropriate location. but whatever. if i said half the shit i really believed, i'd probably go to jail. i dont expect ANYONE, pro- or anti- gun to like what i say or believe its valid. its just what i believe. take it or leave it, i dont care.
for the record, for those unfamiliar with the basics of american history: america was essentially founded by the writing and releasing of the declaration of independence in 1776. this same year, virginia wrote its constitution, containing section thirteen. eleven years later, in 1787 the united states adopted the constitution, after ditching the articles of confederation from 1777. the bill of rights, made up of the first 10 ammendments to the constitution went into effect in 1791, four years after the constitution. some states only ratified the constition under the conditions that a bill of rights was promised soon. the idea of original intent is that the constitution must be interpreted according to what the founding fathers meant rather than simply what they said. it allows people to further expand upon ideas presented in the constitution to clarify whether or not a certain situation is a violation of the constitution. this is done by us supreme court judges. cases aren't always clear, otherwise there would never be disagreement. our government has put its trust into judges to draw the lines not presented in writing in the constitution. this, in essence, becomes the law until it is redefined by a higher or future judge or an ammendment to the constitution. currently the interpretation is that an all out ban on guns would be unconstitutional, but that some weapons may be banned among civilians, such as assault rifles. they can't ban guns like this that were legally manufactured and purchased prior to the ban, so there are still civilians that legally own such weaponry. due to the increasing scarcity of such firearms (most are bought up by collectors, and few firing ranges would allow a civilian to fire automatic weaponry anyway) as the time increases since the ban, the price of what guns are still available is going steadily up, as far as i'm aware. many people, mostly ultra-conservative militia types, go so far as to claim the 2nd amendment garauntees the right to any weapons, and that banning assault rifles or rocket propelled grenades is a violation of the constitution. many ordinary but fairly conservative republican-types give a lot of lip service to gun owners rights, but dont go so far as to support the right for anyone to get ANY kind of weapon...maybe in the abstract, but not in real life situations. many other more moderate people, sport hunters and target shooters, support the right to have guns primarily because they enjoy their hobbies whether others find it tasteful or not. mostly these types of folks make up the NRA, or National Rifle Association - one of the largest and most influencial lobbyist groups in america today. they provide LARGE contributions to many political careers, in exchange for support politically.
The assault weapons ban is complete nonsense. It regulated shit that made no difference. Just like today there's a rule that disallows you from having too few american parts on an AK clone. So the weapon functions the same, but if it has too many foreign parts it's illegal. Does anyone really think that's logical? Also if you read the founding fathers' letters you'll find that almost all the key players believed in an armed citizenry. "The people" is used many times in the constitution, but the second amendment is the only place that people try to claim it's only for the militia. It's an individuals right to bear arms, and arms means GUNS not knives or bats.
try a dictionary. arms is not specifically and inherently firearms. in the crusades, christians took up arms against the muslims. they didnt have guns, but they fought just fine. arms means weapons, not guns specifically. the proper word to specify guns is FIREarms, not simply arms. people will kill each other with or without automatic weapons, but automatic weapons do make particularly devastating violent crime easier (in the instance of a drive by shooting) i have been exposed to plenty of the documents written by the founding fathers, and very many of them are VERY contrary to one another. there was no one original intent for anything, there was no one original idea that all of them agreed on 100% and can be used in interpreting the constitution. the constitution is made up almost entirely of compromised decisions. compromises occur out of necessity, due to disagreement. the "founding fathers" rarely agreed with eachother whole heartedly - at least not unanimously. i believe people should have the right to own more types of weapons than we currently are able to, but the constitution may ONLY be taken for its words, and not "original intent." even if it were possible to divine the original intent (which is made up of various conflicting ideas, not one driving idea EVERYONE completely agreed on) of an ammendment, thats not how they're intended to be read. the founding fathers KNEW the social and political climate of the united states would change drastically in the future. they seemed to hope for a government subserviant to the people, and thus created a government that coculd be changed by the will of the people. the founding fathers DESIGNED a system for CHANGING the constitution on the grounds that what works then wouldnt necessarily always work. banning ALL weapons (not simply firearms) would be unconstitutional, but even this is flimsy. the constitution can be changed. ALL weapons CAN be banned - by an ammendment to the constitution. just like an ammendment to the constitution banned slavery, and later banned alcohol (and a later constitutional ammendment switched back and relegalized alcohol) while i feel its our right to own more weapons than we may currently be able to, i dont think we should be able to have ANYTHING unless one is trained and proficient in military, police, or militia uses. a deer hunter or defender of a household doesnt have any need for an assault weapon, and its not unconstitutional to ban them. they are devastating in the hands of criminals, and no more useful than a semiautomatic weapon in the hands of a skilled civilian abiding by the law. just because i believe we should have the right to have automatic weapons doesnt mean i think its a good idea. and it doesnt mean i think its constitutionally grounded. but like i said, i dont expect ANYONE to agree with what all i say.
try comparing the federalist papers to the antifederalist papers. the founding fathers rarely agreed on much. letters and unofficial documents give insight ONLY into the individuals thinking and rationale, and are not suitable as evidence that the founding fathers as a whole intended a certain clause, article or amendment to mean a certain thing which does not appear in writing. it means one person felt that way. disagreement was rampant, and the idea that we can determine what the original intent was is fallacious. we can only go by the literal definitions of the wording they agreed on in the end. the wording was handled meticulously, and is not to be embellished too much or strayed too far from. the second ammendment, while commonly interpreted as a right to own guns, makes NO mention of firearms. plain and simple.
/whacko libertarian mode on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The constitution clearly differentiates between the people and the militia. The second amendment protects the rights of the people, AND the militia, to arm themselves. There are hundreds of quotes from the founding fathers that pretty much prove this was the intent of it. dont believe me? google "second amendment quotes " I personally think that banning certain types of weapons IS an infringement on the amendment. Who's to say which types should be banned, and which shouldnt? (whos to say they shouldnt ALL be banned except for archaic weapons?) Now, I can understand the need to regulate/ban the explosive/chemical/nuclear weapons, simply based on the premise that owning say, a nuclear bomb is a threat to everyone in the blast radius of that bomb, in comparison to a rifle on a gun rack which is not a threat to anyone, at that moment. /whacko libertarian mode Off
Nesta: First off no legal scholar on the anti-gun side has ever even tried to claim that the 2nd amendment ever didn't include firearms. The second amendment was part of the Bill of Rights, which in essence were the 10 extra freedoms that many of the original 13 colonies refused to ratify the constitution without. The Bill of Rights was meant to be the INHERENT rights of all free people, which the government should NEVER infringe. So while it may be repealed by another amendment it would be a travesty. The Bill of Rights is the 10 rights of all people everywhere, and any government or person who infringes on them should be repelled using the second amendment. Period.
