Are you willing to risk the lives of yourself, your family, and future generations on that belief?
Even though this is the Big Brother situation that the amendment guards against, I think that a country wide takeover was something that is a relic of the revolutionary era (US only, not other countries of the world now where it is definitely a threat),
And what exactly do you think is the cause of that? I'll give you a hint, it's not "intellectual evolution", it's the fact that they aren't dumb enough to risk it with nearly 300 million guns in America without them knowing exactly where they all are.
The 2nd Amendment does it's job. It's there for a reason. It is the ultimate check and balance for governmental control. I'm not giving the government any more power than they have now. They already have too much as it is.
Then why did they create the 2nd Amendment in the first place?
and the founding fathers put enough safeguards and checks and balances in place to make sure that it won't happen in this country.
As I already stated, it is THE check and balance.
Yeah, we're just going to have to disagree. You might have more faith in them than I do, but I don't think it's prudent to give them such information.
And so that seems to me to be a reasonable way to keep track of or trace guns if necessary. And I also know that this is probably an untenable proposition to most gun owners.
I don't believe in doing something just for the sake of doing something.
I think it may be better to be proactive than nonactive.
This is the Pareto Optimality side of the argument that anti-gunners do not seem to understand. You don't make an "improvement" if it simultaneously harms other good people at the same time.
Again, not trying to be a dick, but that's a lot of wishful thinking. In all of the recent situations we've seen, an additional second between a volley of rounds isn't going to be enough for any reasonable benefit. Let's go back to the FPS analogy. If you're behind some wall and your enemy knows you're there, how much time do you think you're going to have to not only dart away, but do it AFTER confirming that he needs to reload?
Here is where I do tend to disagree more. My probably terrible analogy, but when I play first person shooters, I most often am nailed by the enemy when I am reloading. The more times I have to reload, the more likely I am to perish in a horrible death. Now even though it is only a few seconds, maybe that extra second is enough for a person to get away during a shootout, or for someone who is carrying to take aim and take someone down.
You're going, "Okay he stopped shooting, I think he ran that mag empty, I have a chance to dart out now" ... and all the while, he's been reloading and completed the mag change while you were twiddling your thumbs.
By the time your fear allows your brain to realize he's out and allows your body to actually move (talking real life now), it's too late.
There aren't many roving bandits with high round weapons roaming period, so why should I be placed on a level playing field? Again, I don't wait it to be a fair fight if I need to defend myself against a criminal. I want to have the overwhelming advantage, especially if they have any sort of surprise advantage.
I don't really like the example of the hypothetical Joe walking down the street and having to engage in a wild shootout with armed thugs. I don't think there are roving bandits with high round weapons waiting to prey on someone with a limited magazine.
How many do you need to encounter?
Someone brought up a corner boy in a previous post, but how many corner boys have most people encountered in their lives? Their friends, families, coworkers?
I don't carry a gun because I've encountered a thug, I don't carry a gun because I expect to, or hope to encounter a thug. I carry a gun for that one horrible instance where I do and it's my health/life on the line. Your life (and to a lesser extent, your health) is the one thing you can never get back. I'm never risking that because the odds are low.
Just like I'm not going to stop wearing my seat belt because I've never been in a fatal car accident. I'm not playing those odds with my life on the line either.
You're underestimating the impact that these magazine capacity restrictions would have. It's not just rifles that have more than 10 rounds (or whatever arbitrary number people want to come up with no empirical basis to choose such an amount). Every single one of my guns has magazines of more than 10 rounds.
As stated before, most of these kinds of crimes are due to the drug trade or gang wars, and if you're not affiliated with such, then this is not something that people should feel threatened about when it comes to magazine size.
Having that restriction means I can't carry my gun for fear of legal ramifications. In what world is that fair or reasonable? My carry gun is tiny in comparison to those many people roll with on a daily basis, yet I still have a capacity of 12+1.
Can I get 10 rounders? I dunno, sure, if they make them. But whose going to pay for them? Not me, not because they say so. Those things cost $35 each BEFORE gougers got ahold of them after the fed started using childrens' deaths for political purposes. They'd owe me $350 dollars.
What about the people who have more magazines? Where is that money going to come from? How are they going to eliminate the bigger-than-10 rounders? Confiscation? Good luck. Making them illegal? All they do is flush them into the black market where criminals are going to get their hands on them anyway. No thanks.
Don't know if you meant that to be a smartass remark or not, but the point stands. Gun free zones don't work. I wish they did, but they don't. Ask the students of Sandy Hook if that gun free zone saved their lives. Ask the students at Virginia Tech. Ask the students at Columbine, ask the people in Aurora, etc.
Yeah, announcing yourself as a gun free zone probably is the best way to present yourself as a sitting duck. They should probably have signs that state there are armed undercover Navy Seals waiting to take out the first bastard that dares make a move.
Is shoving guns in each and every single person's hands what myself and others are calling for? No. (and I will never understand how Piers Moron makes that logical leap)
I'm saying, remove the gun free zones, allow licensed CWP holders to carry their gun with them IF THEY SO CHOOSE, and let those who don't want to either get a CWP or carry go without it. Let that be the end of it.
It's their Right as an American. Let them make that decision as a private citizen. I'd have no problem knowing my hypothetical child's teacher owned a gun and was carrying. In fact, I'd feel safer knowing they'd be able to at least have a chance at staying alive in the horrible event something bad happened.
Want to know what is funny? Obama agrees with me. He thinks having guns around to protect his children while in school is a good idea. They have USSS agents and other armed guards while in school. Why don't my, your, or anybody else's kids get to have that same protection?
Not anymore in the politically correct world we live in. I was just saying it used to be available and never seemed to have adverse results.
Education is very important. But I don't know if it would be allowed in schools. We need some solution.