I'm not for gun control, I'm for gun regulation. The Framers lacked foresight to see what firearms would become in the next century, nor were they able to see the changing military needs of the United States through that time and through the end of the 1940s. Up until 1947, the United States had a Department of War. In 1947, that institution was reorganized into the Department of Defense. Defense is a constant, never-ending activity, whereas warfare is only sporadic and interspersed with times of peace. I support the right to keep and bear arms for legitimate defense and legal activities. However, I believe the government has a duty to ensure that the firearms in society are not held in the possession of dangerous individuals. To me, that means that you should have to pass a criminal background check for possession of any firearm and a mental-health background check for any handgun, firearm capable of firing more than one bullet per trigger pull, or any destructive device. In exchange for that, I believe training in the firearm should be offered free-of-charge so that people are able to safely and accurately employ their firearms. For the record, I would be barred from possessing a handgun under my own proposal. I am fine with that. I believe we should move toward a society that no longer fears a government, and a government that does not fear the people. However, to do that, we would need a significantly different government, one that is comprised of all people equally. Remember the words of Yoda: Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.
I believe it is the people's best interest that the government should ALWAYS fear them. And I believe the people should NEVER have to fear their government. I further believe that, due primarily to the 2A, and as long as it is in place, an armed uprising will NEVER be necessary in our country. But if the 2A falls, and the door for tyranny is opened, and all bets are off. Absolute power corrupts.....
Government fearing its people will only lead to government crackdowns on the people, causing further animus. Keep that trend and soon, we won't see crap getting done. I do make a distinction between the government and the elected politicians. Elected politicians need to fear their electorate, that if the elected politicians don't do their job, they will be removed from office. In a democratic society, I would expect a deliberative assembly with the approval rating Congress hit in 2013 to only retain around 20-30% of its members. However, the trend of over 80% reelection for running incumbents will continue and we will be left with much the same situation in the 114th Congress. The reason an armed uprising will never take place in the United States is because the United States Military is too powerful to be overcome. I know, many will say "the military isn't going to attack rebels in an uprising", but that's bull. The military will act on the side of the government. The Second Amendment is a laughable relic of a bygone era that needs to be replaced with a more modern guarantee about the right to keep and bear arms.
This is precisely what I meant, said more eloquently, about the government fearing the people. Knowing the military as I do, I just do not believe this. Our troops swore an oath, and I believe they will uphold that oath. The ones to which I am related and associated will absolutely NOT side with tyranny. Our troops will not turn their arms on their own countrymen to side with a corrupt government. No way, not any day. And I have that on good authority from actual troops to which I have posed this question directly. If you claim they will, then we will have to simply disagree on this point. The 2A is fine just like it is. Reasonable and responsible people will permit, as we have done, reasonable, responsible laws restricting it, even though they are all unconstitutional.
You make the mistake of thinking that because someone wants to control guns that they want to take them away. Here is what I would do if I had my way. I would want stronger universal background checks to make it harder for criminals and the mentally unbalanced to get guns. I would like to see strong penalties for people who sell or give guns to criminals and the mentally unbalanced. I would like to see stand your ground laws amended so that the person would have to announce that they had a gun and would use it, if the situation permitted, before firing the gun. After all, the person carries a gun for protection if one can protect oneself without firing one should. I think people who wish to own guns should be required to take a safety course before they buy their first gun. I think those who have concealed carry permits need to have a badge to wear or some other outward sign that they are carrying a gun when in public. As a person who is unarmed I think I deserve to know if a stranger I may be forced to deal with has a weapon so that I can choose to avoid any confrontation that may arise. As you can see none of these proposals would take any gun from any law abiding citizen, but I doubt seriously that this will change any pro gun minds.
Because they are scared. It's really no more complex than that. They could easily take the time to educate themselves on basic gun facts and quell their own fears, but they are frightened, overly emotional, and purely reactionary. So when they come across something scary, their knee-jerk response is to silence it / destroy it / take it away / etc. They have zero interest in better understanding it. You can have a little fun at these people's expense and make them look stupid in a debate, but you're not really going to have much luck getting through to them on a logical level. Because they didn't use logic to form their current position in the first place. Only fear. Sadly, you cannot reason with Chicken Little.
That's just the point, nobody wants to take away you gun. Has somebody asked your for your gun?...or have you been told people want to?
They are ignorant, and wish to remove any object they do not understand from your hands. Oppose all new gun control. Recall the proponents. - - - Updated - - - So you would treat someone differently based on whether or not they are carrying a gun? LOL Why not just treat everyone civilly? So, are you going to get special badges for gangsters?
No. The way I said it makes a distinction between the whole government and the elected officials thereof. They did swear an oath. The oath they swore contains the line: I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Constitution has provisions for dealing with insurrection or rebellion. Putting down an armed uprising is wholly within the Constitution, especially since the Constitution isn't as liberal as you'd think. Few of the same men who signed the Declaration also affixed their names to the Constitution. Take a look at the Whiskey Rebellion. See, that's a dichotomy I am uncomfortable with. ALL laws must be in line with the Constitution. The Constitution's Second Amendment is too broad, and thus, must be reined in somewhat to ensure that there are reasonable restrictions allowed under the Constitution. It's rare to say that the Constitution should be changed to make something violative of the Constitution not so, but the fact that the Framers were unable to foresee the technological advancement of firearms in the next century. Allowing one law to be violative of the Constitution is too many and opens the door to allow other violations thereto.
Yes untrained citizens with light arms are a menace to the US army. - - - Updated - - - More guns usualy results in more and heavier crimes, more accidents and more guns on the black market. Its not you they have something personally against but more the entire system created around them thats very flawed.
More and heavier crimes? Examples? School shootings (in gun free zones)? Chicago alone accounting for about 10% nation's homicide rate?
You make the flawed assumption that the US army would side with a tyrannical or unconstitutional government. Scenario: A rogue Army General and his minions kill the President and try to seize control of the US government. Do you think the entire military would join with him to squash an armed uprising of hudreds of millions of citizens in violation of their oath?
. You will never stop a criminal from obtaining a gun. Same with a mentally unstable person. Just like you can't stop robbery or rape. But you can protect yourself if you have a gun.
They will confiscate the guns people. They did it already. It will happen. Registering will only make it easier for them
You are sadly mistaken. This town has proven it . . . . KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house. In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition. The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants." Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy." "People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case." In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge. Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide. "It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years." Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it. "You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.
This discussion reads almost the same as the eternal repeating of radio protocol that we have to engage in with my work. The truth is out there, but nearly every single person who doesn't know it has some preconceived idea about what it should be. It is the responsibility of every single person who takes a stand on anything to seek out the discussions and status regarding that subject, and to find out the current status, before engaging in their effort to sway it either way. In a peculiar sense, this preference for knowing little to nothing actually works to the benefit of we who would keep the Leftards from destroying everything. As long as they think they're gonna' re-invent the wheel, they can't have any clue about how we roll.
Really? Then lets tightly regulate everything that did not exist in 1780 because the Framers could not forsee anything we have today. They certainly could not forsee identity theft, so lets crack down on computers and regulate who can buy a computer and who can use the internet. Thats the entire problem - the word "legitimate" is subjective. To someone like former NYC Mayor Bloomberg, there is no legitimate reason for a person to own a firearm. To Joe "shotgun" Biden, nobody needs anything other than a double barreled shotgun. To actor and long time gun banner Sean Penn, there is no legitimate reason for other people to own guns, but its fine for him to own an arsenal of at least 65 guns. To Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords, there is no legitimate reason for anyone except himself to own an AR-15. Who defines "legal activities" or "defense"? For decades the gun banners have used the govt to implement de facto gun bans through strict definitions of such terms. Until very recently, many states had a "may issue" process for gun permits depending upon the applicant demonstrating to local authorities a "legitiamte need" for a gun. In places like NYC, DC, Chicago, San Francisco and other gun ban areas, no matter how pressing the need it was never enough to be granted a permit or license - in reality "may issue" was "no issue". You want utopia. As long as there are positions of power, there will be corruptible people seeking that postion in order to weild that power to their advantage. And if not corruptible people, then conceited people who think they are better then the rest and should be able to dictate to others. And you make a fatal flaw - you assume fear is unreasonable or unhealthy. Fear acts as a restraint on those holding power so they do not abuse their power. Fear of the People is one of the checks and balances on the govt. If the governor acts responsibly and within the law and the will of the people, then he has nothing to fear. Its only the govt abuser that has something to fear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4 Let's see the mayor of Chicago said there should be gun confiscation. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1_LaBJvI0BI
Guns on the black market ? Well tell obama to stop giving them to criminals like in the fast and furious program
They aren't coming to take our guns? http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...-confiscation-organization-in-droves-n1792657
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html ""Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal." "In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. " "The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen. Like bank robbers, who are interested in banks, gun traffickers are interested in FFLs because that's where the guns are. This is why FFLs are a large source of illegal guns for traffickers, who ultimately wind up selling the guns on the street. According to a recent ATF report, there is a significant diversion to the illegal gun market from FFLs. The report states that "of the 120,370 crime guns that were traced to purchases from the FFLs then in business, 27.7 % of these firearms were seized by law enforcement in connection with a crime within two years of the original sale. " "The report goes on to state that "over-the-counter purchases are not the only means by which guns reach the illegal market from FFLs" and reveals that 23,775 guns have been reported lost, missing or stolen from FFLs since September 13, 1994, when a new law took effect requiring dealers to report gun thefts within 48 hours. This makes the theft of 6,000 guns reported in the CIR/Frontline show "Hot Guns" only 25% of all cases reported to ATF in the past two and one-half years." So thats more then half the guns used in crime come from the legal gun sales system. You trying to deflect the issue isnt going to change that fact. The more legal guns there are the easier for criminals to get there hands on those guns.
