Gun control

[Coors]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

 

This was how James Madison wrote his version.  It is pretty obvious what he thought the 2nd Amendment should mean.

 

 

The 1st Amendment involes the people's rights.

 

The 2nd Amendment involves the people's rights.

 

The 3rd Amendment involves the people's rights.

 

The 4th Amendment involves the people's rights.

 

The 5th Amendment involves the people's rights.

 

The 6th Amendment involves the people's rights.

 

The 7th Amendment involves the people's rights.

 

The 8th Amendment involves the people's rights.

 

How can you honestly sit there and read the Bill of Rights and think that the 2nd is the only one that doesn't protect the rights of the people? 

[VaporX]

The context in which the second amendment to the US Constituion is written, does not grant every citizen the right to own a gun. This is something created by the NRA, the Constitution has it under the context of a well-regulated militia. This simply does not translate to "everyone gets to own a gun", it's simply false. If the Constitution were strictly followed, only government agencies would be allowed to have guns; IE well-regulated militias.

 

This sadly is the politics of the day, when it is convenient people make the Constitution mean what they want. For example the first amendment is not about keeping the church out of government but rather keeping the government out of church. It was consider not just the norm but proper for prayer to exist in schools and religious monuments to be on public grounds. Yet today we re-write the meaning to what we want it to be. The issue we have however is that while one side will twist the concept of the constitution to their agenda the other side will grab another section to do the same meaning both lack any credibility in their argument and in essence give support to the other sides position.

 

In the end however we still have the issue that no laws can be passed to stop this violence. We must fund the cause of the violence and fight it not the tools. History has shown us that fighting the tools just means people come up with new tools.

[ccokeman]

 

 

 

Yes it did.  I meant to be "quoting" your text instead of editing it.  Really sorry about that.  You can delete it if you want because truly what is left is kind of out of context.  Your choice.

 

If you can delete it, that would be great. I could see that being taken the wrong way entirely. 

 

To respond to your previous message about why no guns at walmart and places like that. I just feel like guns there are kind of a bit too advertising so to speak. I don't want someone to be at walmart picking up milk and saying to themselves, you know what....I think i want me one of them. 

 

I would much rather have someone walk into a gun store with the clear mind that he/she is going to buy a gun. 

 

My ultimate goal is that we keep guns out of the hands of stupid people. Not good, bad, or any other type of people other than stupid ones. Would my idea work 100%? HELL NO! I am smart enough to recognize that. But would it somewhat help prevent putting guns in the wrong hands? probably. 

 

I think my suggestion would curtail the problem. It wouldn't solve it. 

 

 

And why would it be wrong to pick up some milk and eggs then decide you want a new shotgun or varmint gun while walking around in the sporting goods section at Wal mart? Wal mart is selling shot guns and 22's, no pistols or AR-15's. Once you start setting limits you end up on a very slippery slope. 

 

 

That is very true. It is hard for me to explain it, but my main issue is that a ton of people just don't respect guns as weapons. When I was in boy scouts years ago, we had a shooting event. The parents started pointing the rifles at each other (screwing around, nothing was a serious intention) and one of the guns went off by accident (issue with the safety) and the bullet went right above the scout masters head and through his cowboy hat.

 

My comment about the milk and eggs came from them. They were picking up milk when they thought the "needed one of them".

 

And it is one of those things where if they shot each other I wouldn't cry over it. Both parties were horsing around with lethal weapons. But it could have easily have been me or someone else in the path of that bullet on the other side of the hat. 

 

So in the end, I would HOPE (maybe that is the best word) that simply trying to minimize the place of purchase of guns might just help to keep them out of the hands of those geniuses out there.  

 

 

There in lies the problem. You cannot legislate stupid!  Minimizing the purchase opportunity is not the solution, teaching respect for weapons at an early age is. We are just a few hundred years removed from having to use a weapon as the means with which we survived.

[ccokeman]

 

In the end however we still have the issue that no laws can be passed to stop this violence. We must fund the cause of the violence and fight it not the tools. History has shown us that fighting the tools just means people come up with new tools.

 

 

Indeed. Tools are useless without the hand to wield them.  

[Waco]

 

 

In the end however we still have the issue that no laws can be passed to stop this violence. We must fund the cause of the violence and fight it not the tools. History has shown us that fighting the tools just means people come up with new tools.

 

Indeed. Tools are useless without the hand to wield them.

Agreed.

 

Proper training and non-insane gun laws would go a long way towards a more civil society.

[Disparaitre]

...

Edited September 21, 2014 by Disparaitre

[flareback]

 

 

Furthermore, it is ludicrous to believe that only the criminals will have firearms, considering the police and other government officials such as the FBI and CIA all have firearms. If the argument that "only bad people (AKA criminals) will have firearms" meant that law abiding citizens will have no means of protecting themselves, then it is even more absurd because as illustrated above, most of the time you will either not be able to use the firearm to defend yourself or you could defend yourself through other means.

 

 

Because when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

 

Gun control really isn't about keeping people safe. Gun control is about taking the guns away so that the people can't protect themselves from the government and hold the government accountable.

 

Penn & Teller explain gun control. Warning, NSFW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXOuuHcjbs

 

 

Oh... Are you ever so mistaken. Suppose the government became an oppressive one, how many people would take up arms and fight the government in this day in age? Most people are apathetic and will not do anything. So that point about protecting ourselves from the big bad government is moot. Furthermore, even if many of us chose to rebel against the government, would we win against the US military? I think not. Successful rebellions require capture of key structures, key political figures, communication, the assistance of the military, and a few other factors (this was discussed in one of university courses, but I forget all the factors that influenced the outcome). Might I add that we live in a day where we do not need firearms to protect ourselves from the big bad government, take a lesson from the Egyptians in their recent uprising in the Middle East (that is one of many cases in the recent past of civil disobedience). 

 

It is fine that people love guns, but don't make up these false excuses that it is to protect ourselves when most of the time a criminal will have you by surprise and if he has a firearm you will never be able to use it as he will shoot at you before you even get to pull it out, and if the assailant does not have a firearm then would you need a firearm to protect yourself when you could easily flee or fight back via other means? 

 

Also, just because the Supreme Court ruled that the second amendment guarantees the right to firearms for the people does not necessarily mean that it is the correct ruling or was the intent of the founding fathers. Remember, our Supreme Court system once ruled that segregation was legal as long as it was equal. *cough* And please do not forget that the justices can and are influenced by others (not so much as other government officials because once they are appointed they are there for life and could vote based on their conscience).

 

Moreover, if you examine the words and context of the second amendment you will realize that when it addresses who should have the right to bear arms, it states that "a well regulated militia" meaning that these average working men (equating to modern day reserves) who are trained should bear arms. Also, when the founding fathers wrote the second amendment they wrote it with the vision that we would not have a standing army, and now that the militia is pretty much obsolete, what justifies people to have the right to bear arms when it is not for protection?

 

You are correct, many people wouldn't stand up to the government, they wouldn't have the guns to be able to. But I also think you're mistaken if you think the entire military would turn on the people. If it was bad enough that the people rose up in mass, then at least part of the military would join in. I'm going to guess that you didn't watch the video.

 

It's not always possible to flee, and I'm sorry if someone comes at me with a knife, I'd rather have a gun than "fight back via other means". I'm not good at hand to hand combat. I wouldn't want someone with a knife or a bat or other blunt instrument meant to bludgeon me getting close enough to actually hit me. Tazers? they have to be close enough for me to touch them which me they can touch (stab) me. Mace? If they're determined enough they'll fight through the pain.

 

Even if we aren't talking about the government being oppresive. If someone breaks in to my house with the intent to harm my family or I and I call the police, how long will it take them to get here? 10 seconds? Yeah right. More like 10 minutes. By the time the police arrive the only thing for them to do will be to investigate and write up a report. They can't be everywhere all the time, nor would I want them to be everywhere all the time. I'm not going to rely on the police for the protection of my family.

[Renigade]

Winchester 44-40, Remington 22 and a Mossberg 500 12 Gauge, S&W 38, and my Pride and Joy that I learned to shoot on 1982 Crossman 760 powermaster.  I got my first 22 at 15 years old. I trapped and hunted. I go shooting on a regular basis.

It is an American thing, you wouldn't understand. [all due respect]

[Tjj226_Angel]

See I think a great way to just get around poor gun control is to just reinstate the death penalty in every state and make it so that heinous crimes are escalated right up to death penalty. I don't think armed robberies and rape would be as rampant as they are if we just offed a couple criminals to scare the rest of them. Then we wouldn't need guns as much. Other than maybe for teaching our government that they need to shape up. 

 

 

[Coors]

See I think a great way to just get around poor gun control is to just reinstate the death penalty in every state and make it so that heinous crimes are escalated right up to death penalty.

 

Still wouldn't do anything for mass murderers that typically kill themselves anyways.

[Waco]

 

 

See I think a great way to just get around poor gun control is to just reinstate the death penalty in every state and make it so that heinous crimes are escalated right up to death penalty.

Still wouldn't do anything for mass murderers that typically kill themselves anyways.

With our legal system there'd be a lot of innocent people dying as well.

[Disparaitre]

...

Edited September 21, 2014 by Disparaitre