2nd amendment supporters

You're blathering about bankruptcy and financial crashes has absolutely nothing to do with the rights and liberties enumerated in bill of rights / constitution. You make absolutely no sense on this.

Scratcho makes points that do make thinking libertarians loose sleep. Technology allows for really concentrating power to small groups of people. In the end, there needs to be "boots on the ground" to totally control a populace, and those boots will be worn by flesh and blood that is not impervious to bullets and other projectiles. US is good in demolishing things, but the whole controlling things after demolishing, the US is not good at. Still, there is hope for my constitution and liberties.

The US cannot ever take all guns off the streets, even if they wanted to. So your what if point is moot. What if the queen had balls, well she would be king! She'll never have balls and never be king. It is just the way it is.

 

It is interesting and scary to think about an EMP, or something that would allow foreign forces to invade. If that becomes the case, there damn well better be a rifle behind every blade of grass here!

If you voluntarily join the military, that oath is important. I remember like it was yesterday when I took that oath.

Peace!

 

The problem, specifically, is welfare, and all of the interrelated issues that come with it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2

 

To get a permit for a sidearm or filling out paper work for say a shotgun, They call NSIC IIRC and they will punch up you're info from every fucking thing you ever did in a punch of a key.

So since its my 'right' to bear arms, Why should I have to go through all that shit twice? Did I live a clean life to obtain a clean record and carry permit to turn criminal and rob, Kill etc.

That's another POS media stunt they pull, They already have a great system, Nutballs will obtain firearms either way, Legal or tony two thumbs in the alley with nothing but cash and carry, With a free box of shells.

Do you want to take another driving test after you pass drivers ed or driving school? Buy a new car, They make you test it so you don't give it too much gas and hit the poor box of puppys, Where does it end? Its Nazi America as it is.

 

Okay, that response tells me your either trying to troll here or you are trying to change the subject.

To a point all the social issues are connected but for the sake of discussion, we were talking about the gun debate here in this thread, not welfare.

 

And I'm not saying background checks are going to get all the crazies.

My point is this: the majority of gun owners are responsible. It's the small minority of bad gun owners who are probably part of a criminal underground that's ruining it for the rest of us.

It also doesn't make sense to expect regional or even statewide bans on gun-type legislation to work because of illegal smuggling between states and the fact that a lot of weapons are/were already in circulation before any anti-gun legislation or pro-backround check went into effect.

Since Australia passed strict gun regulations they haven't had mass shooting tragedies to the same scale we have in the States.

So its been proven law can have an effect on reducing tragedies specifically.

Not all crimes involving guns can be treated as equal either. That's why we have criminologists, and forensics people, and intense study into victimology.

----

I also want to address the topic of guns as self defense tools.

While I agree in principle that a gun gives you the power to fight back against robbers or kidnappers attempting a home invasion, a gun is only as good for that scenario if you saw them coming.

If the bad guys catch you by surprise, which is most often the case, they'll tie you up and you'll most likely get your gun(s) stolen to be sold in the black market.

If you don't believe me, all you have to do is listen to what some convicted inmates have said about the prep work that goes into some operations.

 

Not trolling and not changing the subject, the question was asked and I answered.

Were it not for gun violence, meaning if there were none, or very little, would there even be a debate? Why isn't there a knife debate, or a baseball bat debate, or a crashing vehicles into buildings debate? Too many people see the guns themselves as the problem, and the removal of them as a solution, but the reality is, especially here in the U.S. is that there are so many already in the hands of the citizenry, and in the hands of the criminal element, that complete removal is impossible. So there are those who's capacity of understanding stops at the gun, and there are those who can see the actual problems beyond the obvious. Essentially, there is no gun debate.

 

Interesting item in the news this week reporting a rash of mass stabbing incidents in China.

 

Next thing you know ranger if I buy a steak knife they want to do a background check

 

A couple things:

1. There isn't a knife debate because it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, so it doesn't have the same kind of cultural support or reaction that guns have.

2. Knives are no doubt lethal, but guns are able to cover a range of destruction that is wider, and bullets are faster than throwing knives. It's just not an apples to apples comparison.

Weaponry, and the type used makes a difference in efficiency of the hunt. This is demonstrated also by the history of war. There's a reason why in many times in history were armies with outdated swords and knives could not compete with more advanced guns of their era. Logic assumes that this truth is still valid which is why more innovations on gun design are constantly being made.

 

Arms are not just guns but knives as well....

 

Perhaps I should have left it at the first question, which you seem to have accidently passed over: If there were little or no gun violence, would there still be a debate?

EDIT: Guns are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the term "Arms" is used, which covers any weapon. I am well aware of what guns can do, and the differences between them and other weapons, and I will add that psychologically, the difference between them is that most people have experience with knives and blunt weapons, but see them as serving a different utilitarian purpose, and as you mentioned, bullets are faster, indicating the misconception that many people hold that they could somehow escape an assailant with a knife or bat, but the truth is most people just stand there and become victims because they can't process what is happening fast enough. The simple truth of the matter is that those who want to remove guns from society are afraid of them, and afraid of people in general, seeing everyone else as a potential assailant.

 

Before I answer that I do want to make a point of argument that the question is unfair because it's answer is unreasonable.

There are debate about almost every topic, but I honestly feel that society would feel better that we TRIED and in some way reduced gun violence, and the gun debate DID NOT have the same magnitude it has today because of mass shooting events like Columbine and Sandy Hook, and various deadly mall shootings.

So yes, if you mean by "little or no gun violence" you mean specifically reducing the factors that contribute to how guns get into the individuals (and there's a pattern here on the types of individuals who do those types of crimes which backround checks can help with) I think the intensity of the anti-gun people in this debate would be reduced. At least pro-gun people would have a bigger leg to stand on that they're being reasonable an trying to address the problem while respecting the 2nd amendment. But right now they don't have that counterargument they can make.

The problem is there is a sub-group of pro-gun people who are dominating the media that are responding to this debate by saying things that make the rest of the country think anybody who likes guns are dogmatic, irresponsible, and cold-hearted people. It's hurting pro-gun people more than helping can't you see that?

 

Also another thing since I didn't respond about your crashing cars into buildings argument:

About the crashing cars analogy: there are laws and procedures for suspending someone's license if there's a history of bad behavior/reckless driving/accidents. Damage to a building can be fixed, it's just a money issue, but lives lost by being hit by a car would be a case of manslaughter at the minimum.

If they are found in a car without a license, then that becomes one more thing that the person legally is gonna be charged with.

 

Take a look at the paradigm you are operating under, you think that my question somehow implied a way to keep guns out of the hands of certain people, but I said nothing of the kind. I do not understand how my question is unfair and its answer is unreasonable, can you please explain that.

The reason I asked is because I was trying to determine if you believe that the guns themselves are a problem, or if your issue is what certain people are doing with them. If it's the simple existence of the guns themselves that you think is the problem, ok, then the debate is whether or not guns should ultimately exist, if it's what certain people do with them, then the debate ceases to be about guns, but about the people using them for nefarious purposes. I'm sure you don't believe that taking guns away from everybody will make you safe from the people that would ultimately do you harm because anyone can see that there are plenty of other means that are just as effective, as demonstrated most recently at the Boston Marathon.

 

None of those things will stop a person from driving a car into a crowd of people.

 

You see THIS at a specific level is what people should argue about in any proposed legislation about backround checks before purchasing guns an ammo.

The debate should be about HOW to implement backround checks while avoiding the pitfalls and addressing the nature of misdiagnosis of mental health issues.

If my ability to be a responsible firearms owner is compromised by schizophrenia or something like that I WOULD want someone to take my guns, for fear of be hallucinating and hurting the very people my firearms are meant to protect, including myself.


Instead what happened was the NRA said: No discussion on backround checks, it's a deal breaker we can't support it <(What kinda of conversational answer to this debate is that?)

 

Dude, I don't know what your experience level is when it comes to dealing with government agencies, but trust me, they are the last people you want to charge with making any kind of decision based on medical diagnosis. (don't get mad, just injecting a little humor)

 

And like I said any back round checks are not going to fully stop all gun violence but it's the gesture, the step in the right direction as national policy that says we're trying to put barriers between letting a law abiding citizen from obtaining a gun and a nefarious person (who might be a citizen) get a gun to pass it along into the criminal underworld OR letting an unstable person obtain a gun. (Like Lanza, like the Columbine kids)

So again why are backround checks a problem?

 

Your last post about the topic of medical diagnosis, implied you were diagnosed by the private sector, not a government agency.

That context being set, I was assuming that was still the context.