by Simon 166 Replies latest social current
I don't think I am being a jerk or having a knee jerk reaction. I think there is room for some sort of middle ground between no guns for anyone and all guns for everyone.
Unfortunately for both sides of the argument it always goes to an all or nothing stance.
for both sides of the argument it always goes to an all or nothing stance.
Sorry, but I disagree.
The point of this topic is to ask where the boundary was but some people take exception to the question even being asked, let alone anyone having an opinion on it.
I haven't seen anyone arguing for a complete ban on all weapons, just asking where the limit should be to balance personal security and freedom with the right to have a safe society.
Some people are not balanced though so they can't even have the discussion.
Now, tell me again how you need your guns and the lame reasons you think justify them.
Why should I bother? You've made it clear you don't want to hear a different opinion.
In the context of the 2nd amendment / needing a militia being "the reason" - I think it's a lame one.
So far no one has stepped in to explain where the limit to the 2nd amendment is. Why can't I have a tank for instance? Or some RPGs?
(I also like to shake the tree sometimes to catch some nuts ;))
My perception is that it is very much an all or nothing issue here in the US, which is why a resolution is unlikely.
Would an assault rifle ban really harm gun owners? Probably not for the average person. Who decides what is acceptable? Who decides what is right for me or for my community? My state has decided what they deem acceptable, does another state trump that decision?
Its always some THINGS fault, not someone.
Remember when people didn't blame the guns? They said it was the music, oh wait, no its the video games!! that's it, violent video games.
How about you all move to america and vote to ban guns entirely??? Then it will be the gunless utopia with everyone riding unicorns and chasing rainbows you desire lol. Otherwise it seems like the people have spoken for now. And there are still guns.
And limits don't make safety if you still haven't addressed the issue of deranged dangerous people. Timothy McVey never fired a shot.
........really ? What guns were used in the Columbine or Sandy Hook school massacres ?
Or the recent attack in San Bernardino ?
They were all semi-automatics, they weren't recreational hunting rifles were they now ?
Cherry picking... what guns were used in Paris?? I can cherry pick too. Paris should really look into banning fully auto AK47's! Oh wait they did. This concludes my cherry picking
When it comes to limits and laws they are only as good as the people who CHOOSE to follow them.
Its always some THINGS fault, not someone.
No not at all, its involves various elements, lets say these quoted attackers didn't have semi-automatics because they weren't available to purchase at their local gun store.
It would be confidently assuming that there would be less damage at these events or number of deaths within those attacks.
The second amendment is somewhat ambiguous as to the specific types of weapons a citizen may own by merely stating one has the right to "bear arms". Much law is written this way because it leaves room for further expansion and interpretation as time goes by.
To answer your question, Simon, I do think that if we could correctly interpret the Second Amendment as it was intended (to avoid a monarchical rule such as the new nation had just escaped from) then yes, citizens would be allowed to own tanks, rocket launchers, missiles, etc. Obviously, your point that the SA is antiquated due to the development of weaponry never fathomed at the time of the founding fathers is a good one and a valid point because it isn't possible for any citizen to own most of the weaponry it would take to stop the US government should the government decide to, oh I don't know, let's say go SS and round up a race of people for death camps? It may sound far fetched, but the possibility of this occurring most likely scares more citizens than the threat of Joe Hillbilly shooting them.
Here's my personal take on this--I do believe in better gun control, but private ownership is an important thing to so many Americans that it shouldn't be abolished.
In today's world, technology/computers/hacking is really one of the most powerful weapons both for protection against a corrupt government and for the governments protection. But that's just how I see it.
The point being that when you avail the purchase or ownership of semiautomatics to the general public, you are essentially making the devastation greater for a potential massacre event.
You might even be influencing these events to occur by the preconceived acknowledgment of the power and devastation of what these guns are capable of.
I understand what you are saying fink
All I can tell you is what i can do and that's be responsible and safe.
My experience with a prohibition people really don't want is creation of lucrative black markets., big money means big risk, big risk means big violence. Banning alcohol (in america) resulted in this. The anti-drug culture of america has done this. Banning guns here won't change the culture. And its not even a gun culture, its a "no one is going to tell me what to do" culture. Trying to take that away from america is a tough sell.
And I am admitting that is the way it is here, and I know you all loathe it, but that's why I say it is what it is. I grew up here, I tolerate it, and maybe sometimes I'm part of it. Sorry
