Gun Control in the US

[Valsuelm]

Ginsburg, is a woman by the way that thinks the South African Constitution is better than the Constitution of the U.S., something that should have seen her impeached on grounds of treason (go read the tripe of a document that is the South African Constitution and realize just what traitors we have in the SCOTUS).

 

Remind me why the South African Constitution is rubbish? You need to be careful when you make blanket insults against a country that is based on your ignorance, it undermines your point and you come across as some kind of uninformed and emotional fanatic.

 

I made no insult against an entire country. Anyone with half a brain in South Africa would realize and does realize what I said.

 

I'm not going to do your reading for you. If you've read it as well as the originating documents I mentioned along with just a few other Constitutions in the world, it should be obvious to a junior high schooler unless they're truly naive. And that's if they don't get the banking clause or know what goes on in that nation. If you understand the implications of the central banking clause of that document as well as have a larger grasp of how the monetary system in the world works, and where the UN, IMF, World Bank came from you'd see the document for what it is. One could write a lot about that particular Constitution and how it's rubbish through and through.

 

Sorry my comparison of the South African Constitution to that of the U.S.S.R. bothers you, but its 100% right on. Both Constitutions (as well as most Constitutions in the world) are little more than pieces of paper to placate the subjects of the nation, totally ignored by those who wrote them. Ever notice that a super large chunk of the world is a democracy now yet the people in most nations really truly don't have a say and never did? I'm guessing not.

[Valsuelm]

Ginsburg has an opinion. Holding opinions in no way is treason, unless you want to enter 1984 thought police territory for everyone who doesn't constantly have "'Murica is the best nation on the planet" screaming through their heads. And why should somebody look at the Articles of Confederation? Those were so screwed up they put a stranglehold on Jersey and had to be changed as soon as the rich whities could get around to it.

 

If you have no problem with Scalia's argument, then you can't go off on a random diatribe against the court. He was the majority opinion of the Heller case, which you're decrying. So either you have a problem and don't like the situation that he set the legal precedent for (Guns are ok, but there should be controls on the types available and how readily they're available), Or you're fine with it and your AK47 is not protected by the second amendment.

 

Um, if you're talking about the discussion on mandates, the government already has those skippy, and has for a loong long time. Vaccinations for school, Drivers Licenses, Social Security... even on the local level of HOA fees. It's just that this particular mandate is more obvious. And for the record, I'm not going to take some random "Some people say" quote. Give it a source or say it yourself, don't just say "Some guy I know said that ______________"

 

Whooosh right over your head it seems went most everything I said.

 

If you don't know and appreciate the difference between a judicial opinion (I suggested you read a few above) and whether or not you think apples or bananas taste better I give up on you.

 

I'm wagering you've not read anything I suggested you read and wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't read 1984, Animal Farm, or a Brave New World though you refer to 1984 and dystopia at large. Heads up, by many people's estimations (including my own) we're a bit past 1984 in many respects at this point. If you haven't read all those books, I suggest you actually read them, as well as A Brave New World Revisited.

 

If you don't understand the merits of reading the historical documents that contributed to almost every Constitution in the entire modern world such as the Articles of Confederation.... well, again, I give up on you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

Again, never once did I take issue with anything said or opined by Scalia (and again, that doesn't mean I wouldn't or would depending on the case), nor was I ever referring to the Heller v. District of Columbia case. I specifically mentioned Roberts (and Ginsburg as an aside to my point) to you as you used "even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agrees with me" argument. Perhaps you are confused and think Scalia is the Chief Justice? He is not, Roberts is. And quite seriously, if you really did think that Scalia was the Chief Justice, please check yourself, as you're in way over your head. Frankly I feel like I'm arguing with someone who has only a rudimentary understanding and minimal knowledge base in regards to the subjects at hand, and chooses to be ignorant.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Amentep]

I agree with Zor that with the US, it's likely far too late to really put forth any sort of effective ban since there's so many firearms already out there. The real tragedy is that it's a large nation that really feels that they need them because the world is out to get them otherwise.

 

i always thought the gun thing was because we think that we're out to get ourselves. Yes there's a bit of a "defend ourselves from the tyranny of England" in the intent, but also "defend ourselves in case our government becomes a tyranny" too.

 

I think looking at logical gun control makes sense; particularly looking at closing the loopholes that allow people to get around the current laws and perhaps looking at ways to keep guns moving into black markets as well. But generally speaking bans don't work in the US, IMO.

 

But I also don't think that a tragedy like this would be prevented if there were not guns; something like the Bath School killings in 1927 (38 children killed) illustrates how a particularly dedicated and desperate person will find a way to be destructive with or without guns.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Amentep

[alanschu]

Ginsburg, is a woman by the way that thinks the South African Constitution is better than the Constitution of the U.S., something that should have seen her impeached on grounds of treason (go read the tripe of a document that is the South African Constitution and realize just what traitors we have in the SCOTUS).

 

Remind me why the South African Constitution is rubbish? You need to be careful when you make blanket insults against a country that is based on your ignorance, it undermines your point and you come across as some kind of uninformed and emotional fanatic.

 

I made no insult against an entire country. Anyone with half a brain in South Africa would realize and does realize what I said.

 

I'm not going to do your reading for you. If you've read it as well as the originating documents I mentioned along with just a few other Constitutions in the world, it should be obvious to a junior high schooler unless they're truly naive. And that's if they don't get the banking clause or know what goes on in that nation. If you understand the implications of the central banking clause of that document as well as have a larger grasp of how the monetary system in the world works, and where the UN, IMF, World Bank came from you'd see the document for what it is. One could write a lot about that particular Constitution and how it's rubbish through and through.

 

Sorry my comparison of the South African Constitution to that of the U.S.S.R. bothers you, but its 100% right on. Both Constitutions (as well as most Constitutions in the world) are little more than pieces of paper to placate the subjects of the nation, totally ignored by those who wrote them. Ever notice that a super large chunk of the world is a democracy now yet the people in most nations really truly don't have a say and never did? I'm guessing not.

 

Take a chill pill Alex. You're only serving to show that you shouldn't own a firearm because you're unequivocally demonstrating your mental deficiencies.

 

Stop acting like a Junior High schooler yourself, before going around lambasting others for allegedly acting with your own mental capabilities.

 

I'm sorry if this bothers you, but my assessment is 100% right on. Anyone with half a brain sees this, which is likely why you don't and why you're an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Especially given you're already willing to squash a person's first amendment rights because you disagree with their opinions, you're not only talking stupid but also a hypocrite! Come back when you're willing to respect your own constitution because you clearly don't. And I'm sorry if this bothers you, but it's 100% right on. Unfortunately due to Dunning-Kruger and cognitive dissonance defense mechanisms, it'll either woosh right over your head, or you'll just deny it.

 

 

This was fun wasn't it!?

 

 

This post was mostly a satire of your posting style. Mostly.

Edited January 9, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

i always thought the gun thing was because we think that we're out to get ourselves. Yes there's a bit of a "defend ourselves from the tyranny of England" in the intent, but also "defend ourselves in case our government becomes a tyranny" too.

 

When I mentioned "the world" I meant everyone (domestic and foreign).

[Malcador]

Well, not really that sad to take a guarded stance to others. I do wonder how many own guns in the US for personal safety, collecting, or hunting or the idea they need to be able to partake in armed resistance. Can't imagine there's a lot of the latter.

[Calax]

Ginsburg has an opinion. Holding opinions in no way is treason, unless you want to enter 1984 thought police territory for everyone who doesn't constantly have "'Murica is the best nation on the planet" screaming through their heads. And why should somebody look at the Articles of Confederation? Those were so screwed up they put a stranglehold on Jersey and had to be changed as soon as the rich whities could get around to it.

 

If you have no problem with Scalia's argument, then you can't go off on a random diatribe against the court. He was the majority opinion of the Heller case, which you're decrying. So either you have a problem and don't like the situation that he set the legal precedent for (Guns are ok, but there should be controls on the types available and how readily they're available), Or you're fine with it and your AK47 is not protected by the second amendment.

 

Um, if you're talking about the discussion on mandates, the government already has those skippy, and has for a loong long time. Vaccinations for school, Drivers Licenses, Social Security... even on the local level of HOA fees. It's just that this particular mandate is more obvious. And for the record, I'm not going to take some random "Some people say" quote. Give it a source or say it yourself, don't just say "Some guy I know said that ______________"

 

Whooosh right over your head it seems went most everything I said.

 

If you don't know and appreciate the difference between a judicial opinion (I suggested you read a few above) and whether or not you think apples or bananas taste better I give up on you.

 

I'm wagering you've not read anything I suggested you read and wouldn't be surprised if you hadn't read 1984, Animal Farm, or a Brave New World though you refer to 1984 and dystopia at large. Heads up, by many people's estimations (including my own) we're a bit past 1984 in many respects at this point. If you haven't read all those books, I suggest you actually read them, as well as A Brave New World Revisited.

So you think there's a CIA guy (well FBI due to jurisdiction) parked on the other end of your tv, watching you zone out or screw or whatever in front of it? That somebody is going to torture you into thinking that "if the government says it, it must be true"? That we're all chipped and having our every action and thought sent to some mindless government agency for sanitization?

 

Because that's what 84 and those like it say are going to happen (maybe not the last part... but not because those governments didn't try). The fact that you're allowed to be on this website, saying what you choose shows that we're not in 1984 or brave new world. The fact that there is somebody with a different opinion proves it. If we were, the Cops would show up and cart whoever was "wrong" off to be "re-educated" so that if a government person says that the sky is poo-green it IS poo green.

 

Also, if you're really gonna hammer the point home, in what judicial opinion did Ginsburg throw out the "South Africa's constitution is better than the United States"? I mean from everything I can tell, it technically should be because it tackles 20th century problems. And if you're gonna scream at Bruce that he's living in a fake democracy, you better cite reasons. Particularly given that the Apartheid government was ejected through non-military means rather than the "AMERICAN" way of kicking the **** out of the Empire, and the leaders of that citizens movement are currently in charge.

If you don't understand the merits of reading the historical documents that contributed to almost every Constitution in the entire modern world such as the Articles of Confederation.... well, again, I give up on you. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

 

Again, never once did I take issue with anything said or opined by Scalia (and again, that doesn't mean I wouldn't or would depending on the case), nor was I ever referring to the Heller v. District of Columbia case. I specifically mentioned Roberts (and Ginsburg as an aside to my point) to you as you used "even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court agrees with me" argument. Perhaps you are confused and think Scalia is the Chief Justice? He is not, Roberts is. And quite seriously, if you really did think that Scalia was the Chief Justice, please check yourself, as you're in way over your head. Frankly I feel like I'm arguing with someone who has only a rudimentary understanding and minimal knowledge base in regards to the subjects at hand, and chooses to be ignorant.

You weren't? THEN WHY ON EARTH DID YOU BRING IT UP!? I specifically brought it up because it relates to the thread, and rather than attack the actual point you decide to turn around and leap off on a pissed off tangent about the Court not following your personal opinion and interpretation of how they should act.

 

I misspoke with the Chief Justice remark, I freely admit that. But Scalia, who you said you have no problem with, in his opinions on the subject of this thread, said that your point about AR's and similar weapons being covered by the 2nd amendment is flat out WRONG. Specifically, hunting rifles and pistols are reasonably protected by the 2nd amendment (meaning that they won't be banned, but it's unreasonable for them to be entirely available to everyone), but that Assault rifles and other "Weapons with military characteristics" (specifically cited the M16 and AR15 variants) are not supported by the 2nd amendment because they are not peoples first choice for protection, and aren't built for home defense or hunting in any way shape or form.

 

And just declaring "but they can be used for it!" doesn't help your case. Saying a cars back seat is suited to two teens getting it on, is certainly not going to stop a citation of public indecency.

[Valsuelm]

Well, not really that sad to take a guarded stance to others. I do wonder how many own guns in the US for personal safety, collecting, or hunting or the idea they need to be able to partake in armed resistance. Can't imagine there's a lot of the latter.

 

And you think that there's been an explosion in gun sales because why?

 

Fifteen years ago if I mentioned the idea that a new Revolution may be coming to your average crowd of people almost all of them would have looked at me like I was nuts. 'That will never happen here!' would be said and echoed. As a student of history I knew they were wrong, though I didn't necessarily think it would happen in my lifetime I knew that in time most certainly war would come to the shores of the U.S. and it would likely happen from within rather than from without..

 

Ten years ago, after the Patriot Act was passed (which included many provisions that many would have said 'would never happen here!'), when I did mention it as a possibility, people raised their eyebrows at me but a few acknowledged my points and said I hope not to which I replied 'So do I'.

 

For the last five years or so I hear talk of it almost everywhere I go that a long political discussion about anything comes up, and I spend time with people from all walks of life. I don't bring it up, others do. And I've even been surprised at some of the people I've seen bring it up, as it's included people who will say that they themselves thought it would never happen here.

 

You're in Canada. You still have a queen. She signed your bill of rights. I don't expect too many foreigners that are ok with the fact that they still have a monarch to understand. Make all the arguments you want that they are just figureheads, depending on where you live that's usually to varying degrees untrue (and definitely is where you are), and you're ignoring what puppets politicians can be and most often are for whoever bought them, be they royalty, CEO, or foreign government. If and when there is a revolution it will be because there is: 'taxation without representation', and in fact that's largely what we have in almost every nation in the western world. Yes, we have governments and representatives, but at the national levels most of them aren't truly representing their people.

 

While the population in the U.S. has become more pacified and ignorant in the last few generations there is still a very strong connection to what and why this nation (the U.S.) was founded for many. And even for those whom there isn't, there's a clear understanding that their line in the sand (whatever it be) is getting closer and closer to being crossed. While at the same time those who don't pay attention at all or do so but only superficially are sticking their heads further and further in the sand.

 

And Revolution or no.... there's a real lot of folks buying weapons thinking that some really bad poop is not too far around the corner. And as I said in another thread: Unless some miracle never before seen in recorded history happens bad bad things are coming both in the U.S. and throughout most of the rest of the western world.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Valsuelm

[mkreku]

Yeah, it's great that we have all those Americans with their little handguns there to save us then..

 

...

 

I think you need to watch less Hollywood hero movies.

[Malcador]

Yep, some people are like that. Still I'd wager most in the US got their guns to repel home invaders or to collect or hunt. Nothing wrong with that.

[Calax]

Pretty good discussion of gun control on daily show last night.

[Gorgon]

I tend to agree that the paranoia and entitlement of the few are keeping any real solutions off the table. A lot of people screaming 'gun control doesn't work' like a mantra. Like saying it loud enough enough times would make it true.

 

Gun control will work if the government does what they are all afraid of; if it takes away everyone's guns.

[Amentep]

Gun control will work if the government does what they are all afraid of; if it takes away everyone's guns.

 

Even if the government went home to home, building to building etc...there's too many places in the US for people to hide guns and there's no way the government could afford to check every square inch and blockade areas they've checked.

 

So the idea that the government could take away everyone's guns is silly. They can't even keep convicted felons from getting guns even though they're actually supposed to be doing that.

[Morgoth]

The US governement should secretly produce Twinkies again and offer them freely in exchange for gun owners handing in their arms voluntarely.

 

Win is guaranteed!

[Tsuga C]

pic.twitter.com/i29qxhk8

[Tsuga C]

Gun control will work if the government does what they are all afraid of; if it takes away everyone's guns.

 

Thank you for your recipe for inciting civil insurrection. I'm locked and loaded.

 

http://t.co/kJ59hiqo

[Calax]

pic.twitter.com/i29qxhk8

How many were killed with hand guns son?

 

And nice over the top "END OF THE WORLD IF YOU TAKE OUR GUNS" essay. Got anything reasonable?

Edited January 10, 2013 by Calax

[Tsuga C]

Got anything reasonable?

 

Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I do. <----Watch all three and learn.

[Valsuelm]

pic.twitter.com/i29qxhk8

 

How many were killed with hand guns son?

 

And nice over the top "END OF THE WORLD IF YOU TAKE OUR GUNS" essay. Got anything reasonable?

 

Answer: A LOT more than were killed with rifles. Yet semi-auto rifles are the main focus of the discussions at large currently in the media in regards to 'gun control'.

 

Yea... I already recommended a bunch of historical reading for you, and there have already been a number of good links in this thread. You've chosen to largely ignore them.

 

That essay is not even remotely over the top, though I'd say it could have been written a bit better.

 

Random things to consider in regards to the topic at hand:

 

http://english.pravd...ericans_guns-0/

 

http://youtu.be/0nM0asnCXD0

 

http://youtu.be/FWNOiw_XIV8

 

And by the, way: Had you asked people who opposed the re-election of Obama what they thought was in store for them in his second term, many would have and did say (long before Sandy Hook) that his administration would be coming for the guns next. There's a much bigger game being played in this world than you realize and all this hoopla in the media about gun control was predicted and very predictable if you see even a part of the chess board that is World Politics (a great many do not). You need to spend some serious hours educating yourself about this world and it's history to realize it.

 

The all important question 'Why?' should always be asked of everything. And one place it's rarely asked by most people is 'Why is this a story right now?' about whatever it is is the story of the day, week, month, or year. The answers to the 'Why?' are often not simple and take quite some time and self education (no one can make you learn much beyond the simple but you) to come to.

 

Also, make no mistake that the White House et al who would have guns taken away or restricted more than they already are already have the legislation they wish to pass written and likely had it written years ago. Just as the Patriot Act was written long before 9/11 ever occurred. And both pieces of legislation are written by peoples who are anything but patriots of the U.S.

 

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

 

I'm no fan of FDR by any means, however even men such as he are capable of saying some truisms. The above is one.

 

Edit: Here is a link to a good read. It's not directly on topic, however it discusses something that very much is related in the big picture of the 'gun control debate'. It's a good place to start getting educated as to how things really work as it's crammed full of information not commonly known anymore yet extremely relevant to the world yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Calax]

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/10/two-reported-hurt-in-california-school-shooting/?hpt=hp_t1

 

And you wonder why we're talking gun control?

 

My point about that magical graphic was that it ignored the largest form of murder in the USA because it was guns and went against the NRA's narrative (that guns save, they don't kill). By the logic you're using (rifles aren't such a big threat) we should be banning handguns instead of Assault rifles.

 

Why am I not doing the readings you oh so "helpfully" provided is because they're relatively irrelevant to the current discussion. Nobody is going to go before the supreme court and argue that while the constitutions second amendment (which is magically unchangable or unlimitable... even though the first amendment is) says one thing, the the Articles are saying something else.

 

Fine, you want your assault rifles? How about this. They can only be owned by organizations that are regulated and governed by the ATF, with stringent requirements about what those regulations can really do... we'll call them "Militias" and be done with it. After all:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

And some yahoo from the south isn't exactly "A well regulated militia"

[Valsuelm]

http://news.blogs.cn...ting/?hpt=hp_t1

 

And you wonder why we're talking gun control?

 

My point about that magical graphic was that it ignored the largest form of murder in the USA because it was guns and went against the NRA's narrative (that guns save, they don't kill). By the logic you're using (rifles aren't such a big threat) we should be banning handguns instead of Assault rifles.

 

Why am I not doing the readings you oh so "helpfully" provided is because they're relatively irrelevant to the current discussion. Nobody is going to go before the supreme court and argue that while the constitutions second amendment (which is magically unchangable or unlimitable... even though the first amendment is) says one thing, the the Articles are saying something else.

 

Fine, you want your assault rifles? How about this. They can only be owned by organizations that are regulated and governed by the ATF, with stringent requirements about what those regulations can really do... we'll call them "Militias" and be done with it. After all:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

And some yahoo from the south isn't exactly "A well regulated militia"

 

I'm well aware why we're talking about it. What I wonder is how you can be so dense to think the gun is the problem in the above article, or really almost anywhere else. There's over 300 million people in the U.S.. Every day there's going to be a whacko or three whacking out somewhere about something. The answer is never to force everyone else to give up any freedom to protect us all from the whackos. They will always exist. While there are likely ways to lower their number curtailing essential freedoms (in particular the last line of defense for all of the others) of the non whackos is not one of them. Big kudos to those that talked this kid down, however this story should not be national news.

 

I realize you're likely to not educate yourself. But here's more reading:

 

http://www.guncite.c...rol_essays.html

 

and www.guncite.com in general has a lot of information on the topic.

 

And the ATF should be abolished. it's an extremely corrupt organization. Also, anyone is supposed to be able to form a militia. Your observation of a 'yahoo from the south' speaks volumes of the stereotypes you adhere to. I recommend setting them aside, as reality does not abide them.

 

And finally. Yes, people go before the courts (including the SCOTUS) all the time and argue legal precedent. Occasionally, depending on the case and what's being argued, the historical legal precedents existing before the U.S. Constitution existed are brought up in court. The Articles indeed have been used to argue cases before the court, as have the other historical documents I've mentioned and many more. If you don't understand where you, we, or someone else comes from you'll never understand where you/we/they are and where you/we/they are going.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Valsuelm

[Tsuga C]

http://news.blogs.cn...ting/?hpt=hp_t1

 

And you wonder why we're talking gun control?

 

My point about that magical graphic was that it ignored the largest form of murder in the USA because it was guns and went against the NRA's narrative (that guns save, they don't kill). By the logic you're using (rifles aren't such a big threat) we should be banning handguns instead of Assault rifles.

 

Why am I not doing the readings you oh so "helpfully" provided is because they're relatively irrelevant to the current discussion. Nobody is going to go before the supreme court and argue that while the constitutions second amendment (which is magically unchangable or unlimitable... even though the first amendment is) says one thing, the the Articles are saying something else.

 

Fine, you want your assault rifles? How about this. They can only be owned by organizations that are regulated and governed by the ATF, with stringent requirements about what those regulations can really do... we'll call them "Militias" and be done with it. After all:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

And some yahoo from the south isn't exactly "A well regulated militia"

• The phrase "...of the people..." appears in the 1st, 2nd, & 4th Amendments; 3rd (owner), 5th (person), 6th (accused; his), 7th (implied), 8th (implied), 9th (by the people), and 10th (to the people). On the whole, the Bill of Rights is about individual rights and is to be read that way.
  
• The phrase "well regulated" is equivalent to today's phrase "well equipped". Wording might change over the centuries, but the original intent must be preserved.
  
• The ATF is a federal goon squad, well known for running rough-shod over the God given, Constitutionally enumerated rights of the citizens of the USA (e.g. Fast & Furious, Waco, Ruby Ridge, et al.) and no sane owner of firearms wants anything to do with them. Besides, militias are not entities of the federal government. They're strictly state and local.
  

Bottom line, I'll keep my semi-autos of all descriptions as my natural right, thank you very much. And firearms save through prevention far more folks than they kill or injure, too. Read John Lott's works. Come to think of it, I already provided links to him earlier. Learn or don't, but I'm done here as I have other things to attend to besides presenting facts to a sheeple.

Edited January 10, 2013 by Tsuga C

[Calax]

It may be true that anyone should be able to form a militia, but it's also true that anyone can form a religion. This doesn't mean that it's recognized by the US government as existing and getting the tax breaks and other benefits therein. Nor does it mean that those 501c(3) organizations get to break the federal statutes because human sacrifice is a core part of their belief system. Which is where "well regulated" comes into play.

 

By a similar token, I wish that the first amendment was as unchangably sacrosanct as your 2nd amendment. And yet I still can't walk into a theater and scream "Fire" or go to a train station or airport and discuss how many bombs my call of duty character has. Because those constitute threats to the society at large, and create a rediculous amount of chaos. Why aren't you fighting for the ability to have unregulated, completely free speech in any situation? Instead you're sitting here saying that the 2nd amendment covers every type of firearm and that the miniscule regulations placed upon the purchase and ownership of guns is A-ok as it is, even if it means that one person can put 30 bullets into the crowd at a movie theater in 28 seconds.

[misterhamtastic]

I didn't read the entire thread(kinda long for that), but here is my 2 cents.

 

I believe in the second amendment, for one simple reason. It allows us as citizens to tell the government, tread on our rights, become too corrupt, or otherwise abuse the processes by which we choose our representatives, "We the people" have the equipment to effect a change of government.

 

People seem to think that making these weapons illegal will somehow protect the average citizen from other citizens, or something along those lines. The problem is, if legislation, reduction in freedom and personal responsibility were the keys to "fix" our issues, then the existing laws against murder and so forth would be enough to prevent tragedies.

 

Evil acts will be committed. Humanity will commit atrocities. It simply is a part of humanity, and not a very pretty one. Optimistically embracing the idea that "making the weapons illegal will prevent their use and availaibility" is the real madness. Make it a crime to own assault weapons-you simply make it so that only those who will break the laws anyway are armed this way, as well as the government forces who will b e able to enforce whatever they feel is necessary to "protect" the people from themselves.

 

I mean, if you really believe that banning weapon X from availability in order to "protect the public" is what needs to happen, then where should it stop? Shall we limit the purchase of hammers to licensed construction workers and make them register them? What about steak knives? Shall we also make owning a pointy stick illegal and/or regulated?

 

The solution-in my opinion-is to charge the complete opposite direction. Encourage people to be armed. If a criminal has to think to himself,"Chances are that if I brandish a weapon, at least 50% of everyone around me will also be armed," they have to think to themselves,"I'm gonna get shot pretty quick if I show up with a gun."

 

Let's take recent tragedies-Sandy Hook, the cinema shooting-In both cases, had every third or fifth individual in those places been armed, the innocent casualties would have been reduced.

 

It really comes down to your views on human nature. Will disarming the law-abiding citizens in some way make the country safer? If you believe that people are incapable of responsible weapon ownership, then you would say yes. How then, in a disarmed nation, would you make the people feel they have the power to effect change in the face of weapons they have no access to?

 

Machiavelli himself pointed out that disarming the the populace does one thing above all else. It breeds hatred for the government, because it says to the populace that the government does not trust them to act responsibly. If that is the real issue-that humanity cannot act responsibly-then we will not legislate the issue away without getting into ideas addressed by Orwell and similar authors. In order to "keep people safe" we would need to monitor people's every move, every word, and hold them responsible for it all.

 

The smart thing to do-identify the mistakes made by the gun owner involved. He got the weapons from his mother, is what we're told, correct? I assume that she must have somehow left at least one available to him in order for him to shoot her. We have technology to fix this-require a gun lock on all weapons that makes it useless (without heavy modification) in the hands of anyone besides the owner. (didn't steve jobs bring up a technology like this?)

 

Banning assault weapons does one simple thing-it creates strong distrust between the people and the government. A move like this (especially if you include forced confiscation) would say to me that those who are in power want to bring the US to an end as a world power-because it will be civil war. No matter what optimistic ideals you point to, no matter what "civilized thought" you appeal to, that will be the result.

[Valsuelm]

It may be true that anyone should be able to form a militia, but it's also true that anyone can form a religion. This doesn't mean that it's recognized by the US government as existing and getting the tax breaks and other benefits therein. Nor does it mean that those 501c(3) organizations get to break the federal statutes because human sacrifice is a core part of their belief system. Which is where "well regulated" comes into play.

 

By a similar token, I wish that the first amendment was as unchangably sacrosanct as your 2nd amendment. And yet I still can't walk into a theater and scream "Fire" or go to a train station or airport and discuss how many bombs my call of duty character has. Because those constitute threats to the society at large, and create a rediculous amount of chaos. Why aren't you fighting for the ability to have unregulated, completely free speech in any situation? Instead you're sitting here saying that the 2nd amendment covers every type of firearm and that the miniscule regulations placed upon the purchase and ownership of guns is A-ok as it is, even if it means that one person can put 30 bullets into the crowd at a movie theater in 28 seconds.

 

See Tsuga C's post about on your 'well regulated' statement. And getting your religion recognized isn't that hard. That 501c(3) organizations exist in the first place is one of the great evils in our nation today. Not necessarily the organization itself, but the designation and how money is hidden behind it by many an evil organization. The IRS should be abolished for so many reasons, non profits being a big one, but that's another topic.

 

As for why I'm not fighting for the 1st amendment here. The larger topic of the thread is 'gun control', which is what you're arguing for, which deals specifically with the 2nd amendment, not the 1st. I'm all for you being able to talk about your Call of Duty character in the airport. I despise the airport 'security' that has sprung up in the last ten years. I used to frequently fly, now I very rarely do. The TSA is a nasty stain in America and the sooner we're free of it the better. If we're never free of it... well.. worse things are then coming. I also avoid certain U.S./Canadian border checkpoints as some of them in my experience would lead you to believe you're anywhere but traveling between two supposedly free and friendly nations. I've quite seriously witnessed gestapo moments on the train to Canada (advice: never take the train to Canada). What you might be subject to at these 'security' checkpoints in airports and at borders is nothing less than pure insanity at best. The Mexican border can be even worse, as there are checkpoints many miles from the border itself that people who never even crossed or will cross the border are subject to.

 

As for running into a theatre and yelling 'fire!'. That's akin to owning a missile as far as the second amendment is concerned. In some places you'll get away with it though, in both examples. Depending on who you are can help. There are consequences for any action. Legislating something and making it illegal rarely solves anything, no matter what it is. More often then not it just makes a bad situation worse, or creates a bad situation out of thin air. Depending on what those consequences are a civil suit usually will solve the problem (and would in your example). However, people's rights to sue are being more and more abrogated or superseded by criminalizing law all the time. The issues of speech specifically encountered in the 1st amendment can actually be one of the more complicated ones, as it invokes the 14th amendment often as well, an imperfect and contradictory amendment to put it nicely as well as some of the legal source for one of the biggest shams in our modern world: the national debt.

 

I'd say one of the major problems in America in general is the tendency of the ignorant to say: 'We need a law for this!' 'That should be illegal' 'He should be in jail for that'. In reality most of the time what person X did is probably already illegal and no more laws need to be passed. As well as often what the person did that raised these cries really shouldn't be illegal. And God knows we don't need more people in prison. A LOT of what has become illegal should not be so.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Valsuelm