Gun Control

[Bogg]

by their very nature, criminals will find a way. making it harder only serves to limit access to non-criminals, which also flies in the face of the 2ndA. it also is exactly what the statists want. a slow erosion of the 2A so that eventually an all out confiscation can happen. it strikes me as odd that the one sure way to make sure hundreds of unarmed citizens are not massacred is to allow those that wish to carry to carry, but people continue to want to create a fantasy land where the gov't protects us all the time, on the spot so that we don't need to do it ourselves.

this is not to sound obtuse or like i am trying to end an argument, but i could give a hairy rat's ass what the rest of the "civilized" world does with gun control. the fact of the matter is that in all of those countries the gov't could seize total control in less than a few days if it wanted to because the populace has chosen to disarm themselves and make it illegal to arm themselves.

Okay, so........conspiracy theories aside.......I have no problem with legal ownership/carry of guns, and that's not what's being debated. The point is, the argument that criminals will always find easy access to firearms falls apart quickly when you realize that there are other countries that both allow legal gun ownership and have found ways to reduce the access that criminals have to guns. There's a reasonable middle ground between "gas chambers" and letting manufacturers dictate national policy.

[SWedd523]

Okay, so........conspiracy theories aside.......I have no problem with legal ownership/carry of guns, and that's not what's being debated. The point is, the argument that criminals will always find easy access to firearms falls apart quickly when you realize that there are other countries that both allow legal gun ownership and have found ways to reduce the access that criminals have to guns. There's a reasonable middle ground between "gas chambers" and letting manufacturers dictate national policy.

The reason they've been able to limit criminal access and still "allow" legal "ownership" is due to a multitude of reasons, it isn't the enactment of gun laws in the modern era. So let's not try and fudge the truth here.

The "gun rights" people in Europe or other nations have are laughable excuses for "reasonable". Also, I find it ironic that we'd look to other nations for a "reasonable" middle ground. How many times have malicious dictators come into power in Europe? How many millions have been exterminated in those nations? They can keep their reasonable, thanks.




They'd call in SAS if they saw how much loose .22 I have laying around in various places, jacket pockets, range bags, etc. They'd lock me away to know I have 525 round bricks of that stuff in storage.

To get hold of one of these is not easy. You have to go through a scrutinised search, you need a license, and you need to belong to a club

To get some .22!! Most people (at least in the south ) start shooting a .22 rifle when they're in elementary school! "Reasonable" my ass

[Bogg]

The reason they've been able to limit criminal access and still "allow" legal "ownership" is due to a multitude of reasons, it isn't the enactment of gun laws in the modern era. So let's not try and fudge the truth here.

The "gun rights" people in Europe or other nations have are laughable excuses for "reasonable". Also, I find it ironic that we'd look to other nations for a "reasonable" middle ground. How many times have malicious dictators come into power in Europe? How many millions have been exterminated in those nations? They can keep their reasonable, thanks.




They'd call in SAS if they saw how much loose .22 I have laying around in various places, jacket pockets, range bags, etc. They'd lock me away to know I have 525 round bricks of that stuff in storage.

To get some .22!! Most people (at least in the south ) start shooting a .22 rifle when they're in elementary school! "Reasonable" my ass

......and there it is. We can't discuss keeping handguns from teenage criminals because Hitler.

[SWedd523]

OK, so it seems that "assault weapon" is a misnomer, and is being used as a scapegoat for gun violence, correct? If the only difference is casing, then yes, it does seem ridiculous to ban one but not the other based on looks. I think it may be because kids use "scarier" looking weapons in video games, and a lot of people like to improperly paint violent video games as the bane of society.

Yes, it's based on a purely cosmetic basis, and they're using that basis to further their cause because sheeple are so readily willing to accept whatever drivel they're force fed by the national media.

Can there properly be a limit on the number of handguns a person can own

Not to be a dick, but no--because it's none of the government's damn business how many pistols I own. I currently own three pistols. One I use for range time and target practice, one for myself to carry, and one for my girlfriend to carry. I can conceivably justify buying a number of different pistols and have a legitimate use for them. (1911 because I like the looks, little Kahr .380 because I need better concealability, Glock because I have enough Smiths, or simply to collect). Having 10, 20, 50 pistols doesn't make me any more dangerous than if I owned one because I'm not a criminal, so for there to be a limit on the amount of private goods I can spend my own money on would be a ridiculous argument.

or limit the caliber?

Pistols are inherently limited by caliber in that the bigger round you get, the bigger pistol you have to have. Even if you wanted to get a huge, high powered caliber, you're "limited" by the simple cost factor of buying a way more expensive gun to start with, then having to spend much more money on ammunition. Just about all common handgun rounds are typically much less lethal than people would realize. (for example: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...eing-cornered/)

Or maybe increase the waiting period for each subsequent gun you purchase, so that you can't stockpile a large amount of guns in only a few months/years?

Doesn't matter if, according to Bogg, it's incredibly easy to go out and buy a gun on the black market. Smartass aside, it goes back to it being none of their damn business how/where/how often I want to spend my money on private goods. And what good is a stockpile going to do a mass killer, or even a regular (if one is ever such) murderer? They aren't going to roll up with their cache and use 10 guns. They'll use 1-3. At that point, you're just getting into an inconvenience factor.

And if you hit a certain number of purchases in a short time, allow another deeper background check into the mental health aspect, if possible. Maybe make a HIPAA exemption as it relates to guns.

Pointless IMO. If you're going to allow a mental health check at any point in your "stockpile", you may as well do it at every purchase. I don't mean to say a mental health check is pointless, just that it's too late to do it 3, 5, 10 guns into the fact. Just go ahead and do it at the first one. A HIPAA exemption for background checks would be nice in theory, but I've already stated my "disillusionment" with the goverment's ability to NOT abuse the power to deny gun purchases for non-violent MH issues.

(Let me be clear, I am for adding a mental health check to any/all gun purchase background checks, but I do not have faith in the belief that it would not be used in an abusive manner)

As you state, it seems most gun sellers take the law very seriously, and the background checks go as far as they can to vet potential buyers. But is there a loophole or weak point that is being exploited by those trying to skirt the check? Are people able to hide certain things in there background that won't be picked up by the background check? I know its impossible to cover every single contingency, but it seems a lot of folks fall through the cracks that otherwise should have been discovered.

Sure, I dunno. I've never tried and I don't ever foresee needing to. I know any respectable FFL isn't going to risk committing a federal offense just to make some extra cash on the side. Lying on the background check is something I don't have the balls to try, but I'm sure it's possible.

Good luck fixing the black market for guns though, Narcotics have been illegal forever and there's a booming drug trade. (Quick googling gave me this: The UN report, issued in Stockholm, said the global drug trade generated an estimated $321.6 billion in 2003, the latest year for which figures were available.) Where there's a will, there's a way. I can tell you this though, I doubt criminals are going to random gun shops trying to get them to sell to a criminal. They're already going to the black market for that. That market isn't going anywhere.

Maybe here is where a sort of registration or licensing can help fill in some gaps. Its definitely not a perfect solution, and I understand the Constitutional argument, but if it can in anyway help sellers and the FBI see who is and isn't properly registered and licensed, and could flag and deter those who aren't registered or are otherwise disqualified from it from obtaining weapons through the legal means. Or also, maybe everyone has the right to a gun for basic use and protection, but you have to prove your qualifications and mental stability to own a higher caliber gun through the licensing process. I know there are a ton of holes in this argument, but I'm just trying to think of a starting place.

There is absolutely no way you, or anybody else in this world, can convince me than registration is a good step for any sort of long term positive impact. The empirical evidence is vastly in opposition to that belief. Not only would the establishment of a gun owners database cost government an exorbitant amount of money they don't have (I know, I know, not having the money hasn't stopped them from fucking our economy in the ass for the past decade or so...), but registration almost always leads to confiscation and in many cases leads to extermination. It has been the first step to governmental mass murder multiple times.

In the last century alone, over 50 million people have been exterminated by their government after being removed the right to own firearms. I think we should be more worried about that happening here than the ~150-200 annually by private citizens.

And yes, it may be a nightmare trying to register the millions of handguns already in existence. But at the least, you could try to register guns manufactured from this point forward. Or if its not registering weapons, then registering yourself as a gun owner and declaring your past purchases.

See above.

[SWedd523]

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),

Are you willing to risk the lives of yourself, your family, and future generations on that belief?

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.

and the founding fathers put enough safeguards and checks and balances in place to make sure that it won't happen in this country.

Then why did they create the 2nd Amendment in the first place?

As I already stated, it is THE check and balance.

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.

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.

I think it may be better to be proactive than nonactive.

I don't believe in doing something just for the sake of doing something.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

How many do you need to encounter?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Education is very important. But I don't know if it would be allowed in schools. We need some solution.

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.

[SWedd523]

......and there it is. We can't discuss keeping handguns from teenage criminals because Hitler.

You know somebody has lost an argument when they make posts like this.

Should've known better than to take the bait. Find somebody else to troll

[Chef]

this guy gets it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=hY2JR92Scmk

and for those that say it can't happen in america. it did, to the American Indian. first disarmament, then internment and genocide.

qc: one point i want to expand on that swedd has only alluded to. the whole "mental competency" to own a firearm. this is yet another reason why obamacare should scare the crap out of us. it hasn't even been implemented yet and the president has already been looking at using it to encourage dr's (which going forward the gov't will own all student loan debt including med student) to report mental stability issues. this is no different than in the past, except now medical records are tied into a gov't system. link these to background checks and now there is no medical privacy anymore. right now HIPPA stands in the way but can easily be removed or exempted in certain situations like gun ownership.

also, an unintended consequence is that anybody fearing that a dr may give a certain diagnosis would now avoid dr's for fear of the information going into databases. remember, dr's pay, liability insurance etc will all be tied into the same system so there is major conflict between dr/pt relationship.

one last thing. for everyone using the argument that the constitution prevents the gov't from taking over say the internet etc. the only thing that truly prevents the gov't from becoming tyrannical is the 2ndA. the constitution is just a piece of paper. that is why the laws are enforced with a gun.

noodle this. why has the gov't recently purchased 1.4 billion hollow points? recent purchase order of 7000 AR-15's. been doing unannounced armed assault missions firing from helicopters in multiple major us cities? trying like hell to get those on the "terror watch list" (no due process to end up on it) to not be allowed to buy firearms? at the same time buying gold, metals, resources and not using any resources on federally owned land?

they know that the world's economy is going down the shit hole. they know that they are going to have to either tell the people they can't pay for medicare/ss/entitlements OR will have to devalue the currency so much that people will easily see what they are doing. they know massive civil unrest will set off in the cities.

they absolutely do not want to fight a well armed crowd who is rightfully going to turn on the gov't. laugh or roll your eyes if you want, but it will happen. if the good people can't protect themselves from the bad people, they will lineup to give the gov't all of their rights and freedoms in exchange for crushing the day to day crime and violence. when the dust settles, the gov't aristocracy has all of the power and money to do what it pleases.

[QC Thundercats]

Thanks for the followup. I am in no way an anti-gun person, its just to this point, guns haven't been a part of my life. I never could understand the uproar from the NRA and its supporters every time the gun issue came up, and so its been very informative to see the perspective from someone on that side of the aisle.

Honestly, its been much easier to gather information here than on other websites, since this issue is so sensitive and its hard to try to learn something once the debate quickly degenerates into insults, and both sides spit out biased propaganda and doomsday prognostications for those that have an agenda. I appreciate you addressing each point I had.

I did have a thought as to why the issue is so hard for each side to appreciate the other. If you've been around and handled guns your whole life, then you probably feel naked without one. Most of the people around you probably carry, and at some point, a family member/friend needed that gun in a certain situation, so it was always justified that you wouldn't want to be caught without one.

On the flip side, many people have never touched or personally seen a gun in their lives. Since they had never needed one, then they don't see the need for having a gun. And since they hear all the bad news stories involving guns, they make the conclusion that guns are the common denominator and many problems would be eliminated without them.

Both are reasonable conclusions based on someone’s upbringing, but as they say, until you've been in someone else's shoes, you won't understand. And I think maybe this is a big part of why nothing ever seems to be resolved, because people won't ever understand the other.

Now that being said...

If you're going to allow a mental health check at any point in your "stockpile", you may as well do it at every purchase. I don't mean to say a mental health check is pointless, just that it's too late to do it 3, 5, 10 guns into the fact. Just go ahead and do it at the first one. A HIPAA exemption for background checks would be nice in theory, but I've already stated my "disillusionment" with the goverment's ability to NOT abuse the power to deny gun purchases for non-violent MH issues.

(Let me be clear, I am for adding a mental health check to any/all gun purchase background checks, but I do not have faith in the belief that it would not be used in an abusive manner)

So I guess here's a good first step towards a compromise. I agree that we should go ahead and do a mental health check for every gun purchase. Even though you think it wouldn't be effective, I think it still is a necessity (as both sides should agree that mental health is a crucial point), and work towards figuring out the best way to accomplish it. Do you think it would be more effective if it isn't federally implemented, but left up to each state to put in place through federal guidelines. This would allow each state to determine their own needs and prerogatives based on their demographics.

Also, I see your disillusionment, but where better can both sides make a compromise, especially if both sides can agree that mental health is a huge issue? If a tradeoff is ever going to be made, this seems the best place.

Doesn't matter if, according to Bogg, it's incredibly easy to go out and buy a gun on the black market. Smartass aside, it goes back to it being none of their damn business how/where/how often I want to spend my money on private goods. And what good is a stockpile going to do a mass killer, or even a regular (if one is ever such) murderer? They aren't going to roll up with their cache and use 10 guns. They'll use 1-3. At that point, you're just getting into an inconvenience factor.

So, for me in trying to figure out a possible solution, I see that there are two different situations, and that by nature, they can't necessarily be addressed the same way. One is your senseless mass murders, which involves innocent victims, is less common, and terrifies the nation more. Two is your normal, everyday person-to-person shooting, where the victim normally knows the attacker, and is shot down for a particular reason, whether right or wrong.

I agree, preventing a stockpile isn't going to stop your everyday murders. And maybe not necessarily the mass murderers either. However, I noticed in many of these shootings, the killer made many purchases within a few days time. If someone makes a legal purchase repeatedly within only a few days, but their mental health and background checks come out clean, then maybe as a secondary precaution, the system could flag them, and a deeper look could be made to make sure that there isn't something else going on and the check somehow missed it. This wouldn't prevent a regular gun owner from acquiring all the weapons he wants, but it would institute a closer look on "suspicious" multiple purchases. And if everything checks out, the transaction can go forward.

And maybe delaying a psycho mass murderer from quickly getting multiple weapons might be enough time for something to change in their lives: medication to kick in, family member reaching them, boredom, getting hit by a truck. Small chance, I know, but this wouldn't other wise be too burdensome on everyday gun owners.

Good luck fixing the black market for guns though, Narcotics have been illegal forever and there's a booming drug trade. (Quick googling gave me this: The UN report, issued in Stockholm, said the global drug trade generated an estimated $321.6 billion in 2003, the latest year for which figures were available.) Where there's a will, there's a way. I can tell you this though, I doubt criminals are going to random gun shops trying to get them to sell to a criminal. They're already going to the black market for that. That market isn't going anywhere.

Here is where maybe the criminal dichotomy kicks in. The black market is great for those person-to-person murderers, which includes the drug trade and gangs. But in looking up a few of the mass murderers, they all purchased their weapons legally, and I don't really see a young, suburban white kid seeking out street dealers. So even if the black market exists, regulating something in the legal market could still have a positive effect, at least in regards to lessening mass shootouts by a quantifiable percentage.

There is absolutely no way you, or anybody else in this world, can convince me than registration is a good step for any sort of long term positive impact. The empirical evidence is vastly in opposition to that belief. Not only would the establishment of a gun owners database cost government an exorbitant amount of money they don't have (I know, I know, not having the money hasn't stopped them from fucking our economy in the ass for the past decade or so...), but registration almost always leads to confiscation and in many cases leads to extermination. It has been the first step to governmental mass murder multiple times.

Okay, it seems that registration is a nonstarter, and something that would never pass in congress. But here's a different angle. What if we could institute something like vehicle licensing, where at a certain age and proper training, you could apply for your gun purchase license? Like with cars, this license would be easy to obtain, you just have to prove some basic skills and understanding first. And like driver’s licenses, just because you have one doesn’t necessarily mean you have to drive or have a car, and likewise, doesn’t mean you have to purchase or shoot a gun. This way, the tyranny protection could still apply, as most people could easily get such a license, but the government still wouldn’t know everyone who actually had guns. And this could provide crucial training for those that do actually purchase.

In the last century alone, over 50 million people have been exterminated by their government after being removed the right to own firearms. I think we should be more worried about that happening here than the ~150-200 annually by private citizens.

I just still can’t go with yall there. First, I don’t think a gun ban and subsequent confiscation will ever happen in this country. The right to bear arms, whether anyone likes it or not, is one of the principles the country was founded on, there’s too many guns in the country already, and half the population is not going to suddenly disappear to protect their gun rights. It’s too entrenched in society, and could never be taken away, even with a hypothetical president hell bent on eliminating them.

Second, genocide is not going to happen in this country. One, the government is not some faceless, emotionless entity. It is made up of people, who would all suddenly have to turn a cold heart, hypnotize the thousands upon thousands of police and or military to suddenly turn on their own compatriots, and take out their fellow Americans. No matter how much you subscribe to conspiracies, you’re not going to convince a bunch of people to come together to spill the blood of their neighbors and attack a country almost 400 million strong. And any radical fringe group is so marginalized from society that they could never gain enough followers and carry out a takeover plan.

[QC Thundercats]

Are you willing to risk the lives of yourself, your family, and future generations on that belief?

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?

As I already stated, it is THE check and balance..

Again, I just don’t see it as the government is patiently waiting for that chance to start a 1984 style police state. The checks and balances aren’t created or strengthened by the 2nd amendment, it was built within the fabric of the constitution itself by the country’s founders, who had a great understanding of history and the foresight to prevent a brutal empire, especially since they just fought a war to escape one.

Even if there was a sinister, evil person to gain the presidency, he can enact no law. Only the Congress can. Except Congress isn’t made up of one, or several people. They are represented by every state in the land, which has various beliefs and interests. And one chamber can’t take over, because you have a second chamber to balance out Congress. So they check each other and the president.

Then, even if they do try to pass an insidious law, the president can veto it, or the Supreme Court can rule it unconstitutional. Then on top of that is the federal system, where the states have their own granted powers that the federal government and president himself can’t touch. Because the separation of powers is spread across so many entities, which in turn involve so many individuals, I don’t ever see the ability to coalesce enough power to create a tyranny.

So in conclusion, yes this aspect of the 2nd amendment was vital back then because the country was still volatile, and the proposed government had not become rooted and entrenched yet. Plus the population was lower, and they hadn’t spread across the continent, so it would be easier to take over then. Too much time and knowledge has passed, and with the way bureaucracy works these days, any attempt at tyrannical legislation would die a slow death in Congress.

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.

Okay, I can respect that, or actually agree with this point.

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.

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.

Oh I was actually serious about that. It’s like parking your car on the street, but having a sign saying “hey, no security system.” Of course someone will eventually try to break in.

They should advertise that there is some badass on the premises that could annihilate someone. Its like having a “Beware of Dog” sign. You might not have an attack dog, or even a dog at all. But a trespasser will think twice before stepping foot on your land.

[Chef]

Again, I just don’t see it as the government is patiently waiting for that chance to start a 1984 style police state. The checks and balances aren’t created or strengthened by the 2nd amendment, it was built within the fabric of the constitution itself by the country’s founders, who had a great understanding of history and the foresight to prevent a brutal empire, especially since they just fought a war to escape one.

Even if there was a sinister, evil person to gain the presidency, he can enact no law. Only the Congress can. Except Congress isn’t made up of one, or several people. They are represented by every state in the land, which has various beliefs and interests. And one chamber can’t take over, because you have a second chamber to balance out Congress. So they check each other and the president.

Then, even if they do try to pass an insidious law, the president can veto it, or the Supreme Court can rule it unconstitutional. Then on top of that is the federal system, where the states have their own granted powers that the federal government and president himself can’t touch. Because the separation of powers is spread across so many entities, which in turn involve so many individuals, I don’t ever see the ability to coalesce enough power to create a tyranny.

So in conclusion, yes this aspect of the 2nd amendment was vital back then because the country was still volatile, and the proposed government had not become rooted and entrenched yet. Plus the population was lower, and they hadn’t spread across the continent, so it would be easier to take over then. Too much time and knowledge has passed, and with the way bureaucracy works these days, any attempt at tyrannical legislation would die a slow death in Congress.


Okay, I can respect that, or actually agree with this point.



Oh I was actually serious about that. It’s like parking your car on the street, but having a sign saying “hey, no security system.” Of course someone will eventually try to break in.

They should advertise that there is some badass on the premises that could annihilate someone. Its like having a “Beware of Dog” sign. You might not have an attack dog, or even a dog at all. But a trespasser will think twice before stepping foot on your land.

i addressed my opinions on this point in my last post.

just to reinforce, the 2ndA is the lynchpin to the whole standing of the constitution. the only reason it is 2nd and not 1st is that the 1st serves to declare two fundamental things 1. our rights are endowed by our creator (NOT THE GOVT!) and are inalienable (meaning they can not be changed or taken) and 2. we grant power to the gov't the other way around. the founders knew that the 2ndA is THE enforcer of the constitution and protector of our 1st amendment declarations.

this speaks to your suggestion of a "gun license". absolutely positively no. a license by definition is an authority figure granting you permission to do something. we do not need permission to exercise a right endowed by our creator. we do need to exercise a privilege granted by the govt. imagine your reaction if the govt came out with an "easily attainable" license to speak in public, type on internet forums or run a blog. exact same thing when viewed in the context of your rights.

now there are many who think (using the constitution) that needing a license to drive is a violation of our right to travel freely using the common means of the day as alluded to in the constitution. we did not need a license or gov't permission to ride a horse on common roads back in constitutional times (except if you were black, ahem...tyranny). the argument is that they are public roads but the constitution only grants the govt permission to regulate travel if it is to engage in commercial/commerce pursuits.

bottom line, as i said in my very first post in this thread. there is a clear way to change any or all of the constitution. it is written within the document. if we want to change the constitution follow the rules and change it. it is very hard to do on purpose.

one more thing about your not having a nameless/faceless govt. when was the last time you personally saw YOUR congressman or senator? they don't live here anymore. they move to the dc bubble and become career politicians. have you ever tried to get access to gov't buildings in raleigh, let alone dc? when i was a kid i remember every year going on white house tours for the public. i have pictures inside the white house. not any more. ever try to get close to a political superstar? not without some serious "granted access". we have exactly what you say we don't have.