The second amendment

Perspectives on our world and our universe, how it works, what is happening, and why it happens. Whether by a hidden hand or natural laws, we come together to hash it out, and perhaps provide a little bit of education and enlightenment for others. This is a place for civil discussion. Please keep it that way.
Forum rules
1) Remain civil. Respect others' rights to their viewpoints, even if you believe them to be completely wrong.
2) Sourcing your information is highly recommended. Plagiarism will get you banned.
3) Please create a new thread for a new topic, even if you think it might not get a lot of responses. Do not create mega-threads.
4) If you think the subject of a thread is not important enough to merit a post, simply avoid posting in it. If enough people agree, it will fall off the page soon enough.
ampersand
Crazy Person
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 pm
Real Name: Andrew Kunz
Gender: Male
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: The second amendment

Post by ampersand » Tue Dec 25, 2012 3:17 am

I believe Roger Ebert had a quote where he thought kids got the idea of shooting kids and adults in public places from how much the dead gunman had gotten so much attention from the National and Local News media because of their audacious acts and how long it took before the news cycle went to somewhere else. Where else are you going to a) be the center of attention for a good long time and b) do so in what teens and young adults might consider a blaze of glory? While I do think Hollywood and Video Game violent helps solidify the "coolness" of violence, it's now second fiddle to the nightly news.

Focus on mental health and proper placement of such similar events without the quasi-glory that seems to come with such events may make gun control issues a more moot subject.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44137
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Fri Dec 28, 2012 6:02 am

The Cid wrote:Deacon, let me make this perfectly clear: I support the second amendment. ... I'm not coming to take your guns away. I resent the Hell out of the tone and the wording of your post. ... Can't even ask a question without being told I'm trying to ban guns. Give me a damn break.
You didn't just "ask a question" but both used and implied a number of arguments and positions used and held by those who absolutely believe the Second Amendment is an antiquated and obsolete part of the Bill of Rights, that only ignorant rednecks and rich white assholes support it, and that it's dangerous and should be nullified as much as possible since a repeal is impossible despite their best efforts. Many of those people due to the nature of the job end up in the news media or elsewhere in entertainment where their voice is amplified beyond that of the plebeians, scrabbling in the dirt for ammo and clinging to their guns like some wacky and embarrassing religion. Especially with that in mind, the questions asked felt less like an honest bit of curiosity and much more like an inquisition fueled by head-shaking exasperation, questioning rather than asking to learn. While you stated you support the Second Amendment, the rest of your post did not seem to reflect that.

You may not be "coming to take your guns away" (how patronizing is that?), but the Obama administration, together with a Democrat majority in the Senate and his appointees in the judicial branch, are absolutely moving as far and as fast in that direction as they believe they can. I have no doubt that some of them may be doing so out of sincere and heartfelt ignorance, others (most) are doing so because they believe it will be politically expedient due to their constituencies. And with inept stooges like Holder implementing policies as the Attorney General of the United States, it comes closer to fruition as his outrageous antics continue to be swept under the news media's very selective rug.

http://www.ammoland.com/2012/02/08/hold ... o-ban-guns

The difference comes down to world views and experience. If you believe it is wrong--not merely statistically questionable--to defend yourself when attacked by thugs, whether wearing gang colors or a uniform, then you will have a hard time with the idea that is put forth in the Second Amendment. And if you're not familiar with firearms I can see where it's easy to anthropomorphize them slightly in your head and find them to be vile things with no legitimate use other than in the hands of the government. But they are not evil, they are not only to be used by the government to control their foes, both foreign and domestic, and they have done and will do far less violence than speech, religion, and the other rights laid out in the Bill of Rights and utilized daily by free people. And as with any right, I ask you not to approach it with demands that those who seek to exercise it justify why they should be allowed to do so but rather question those who seek to infringe upon it, demanding they justify very clearly why they believe it is necessary for the security of a free state to deny the rights of the people...at gunpoint.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44137
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Fri Dec 28, 2012 1:08 pm

Speak of the devil, and she appears. Obama promised that gun control would be a "central issue" in his second term since he now has "more flexibility" but he's letting well-established anti-gun nut and advocate for wildly increased government powers and control Diane Feinstein float it out there to gauge reaction. This kind of ridiculous effrontery to the Constitution cannot be allowed to proceed, regardless of how thoroughly ineffectual it is.

http://cms.nraila.org/legislation/feder ... -bill.aspx
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
The Cid
Crazy Person
Posts: 7150
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Real Name: Tim Williams
Gender: Male
Location: The Suncoast

Re: The second amendment

Post by The Cid » Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:44 pm

Deacon wrote:the Second Amendment is an antiquated and obsolete part of the Bill of Rights
I never said or implied this.
Deacon wrote: that only ignorant rednecks and rich white assholes support it,
Really didn't even come close to saying or implying this. Of course, I'm just an ivory tower elitist pussy from New England, so what do I know? :) Seriously though, I never even came close to this line of thinking and you know it. Talk about the substance of what I said, not what conclusions you drew from it.
Deacon wrote:and that it's dangerous and should be nullified as much as possible since a repeal is impossible despite their best efforts
Said the very opposite of this. Two posts in a row, but let's make it three: I do not believe that prohibition works as a way to remove something from our society, just ask any crackhead. So I do not support nullifying the second amendment, nor do I support repealing it. That's as effective as waving a prop magic wand and hoping that all the guns vanish into thin air. So please, I can't ask you enough, stop telling me that I feel otherwise.
Deacon wrote:While you stated you support the Second Amendment, the rest of your post did not seem to reflect that.
Except for the part where I explained exactly why I support it in that post. And the one after it. And a third time just above this quote. I support the second amendment, but that doesn't mean I have a rose-colored view of guns or of the people who own them.
Deacon wrote:If you believe it is wrong--not merely statistically questionable--to defend yourself when attacked by thugs, whether wearing gang colors or a uniform
I don't. Where does all of this come from, where suddenly it's reasonable to put all these insane words in my mouth because I have reservations that I never tried to force upon others? I have my doubts about some arguments in favor of guns. I never called guns evil, I never said it was wrong to defend one's self from harm, and I never once came anywhere close to advocating any change to the second amendment in any way. If other people who are not completely sold on guns use similar arguments to support things with which I happen to disagree, I fail to see how that's my problem.

Most of the things I asked about are really neither here nor there when it comes to the second amendment. I may not believe a gun will protect me from tyranny, but that's no reason to prohibit me from gun ownership. I may believe people struggle in the "clutch" as they say in sports, so shooting a potential attacker might be harder than it sounds, but again, that has nothing to do with the right to own a gun. Hell, I definitely believe a bystander with a gun is more likely to turn away from a crime unfolding nearby because it's not their problem and people tend to suck, but that doesn't mean that the second amendment is past its time. I absolutely can be skeptical of pro-gun arguments while continuing to support your right as a responsible American in violation of nothing to own a firearm. There is nothing at all wrong with that.
Image
Hirschof wrote:I'm waiting for day you people start thinking with portals.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44137
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Fri Dec 28, 2012 10:43 pm

I think it's just that the questions asked are not new, and they're generally the same ones used by those who wish the Second Amendment didn't exist, that only the government and the lawless should be able to get them. They'd like us to make nice with Mexican politicians who blame us for their corrupt and largely lawless society, and adopt their extremely strict gun control enforced by the military...because that's worked out so well for them.

So for me it's something of a well worn ditch that's easy to fall into. Feinstein is calling for a nation wide gun registration law, failure to comply being a federal offense. This is odious as historically it leads directly to confiscation at gunpoint, once all the toothy smiles have been smiled and dramatic promises made to not limit the number of firearms I'm allowed to own or the type or that I'm allowed to have them at all. And making it harder than it already is for "the insane" to acquire a firearm necessarily means the government gets to approve or deny any individual their right to keep and near arms based on some government committee's idea of what's reasonable, the members of which are likely to know little about guns and care even less. It's already a lengthy process to purchase a new firearm of any sort, made even worse in some cases by state laws, and it forced you to send all your info in to the federal government along with details of the gun in question (including serial number) for whatever record keeping purposes they may wish.

Really, it's not the government's business which or how many or what type of arms I keep and bear. It is only the government's business to deal with me appropriately if I cause harm to others, armed with a car, a knife, a pen, a baseball bat, a reactor, a pipe bomb, or whatever else. The Second Amendment is already trod upon on a daily basis. Almost all of it is influenced by wild misconceptions held by the public about firearms and their use, driven primarily by movies, TV, and video games, which are dramatically different from the real world. They would gladly sacrifice essential liberty (that they're probably not utilizing anyway) for security theater, the facade of security. Because they're unwilling to protect themselves and their family, no one else should be allowed to do so. Rather than worry about the robberies, rapes, and home invasions that actually do happen on a daily basis--never decreased in any significant way by gun bans--they worry about these rare, freak occurrences where so done freaks out and goes on a rampage--always in places where people are unlikely to be armed and thus able to stop them, nearly always in tragically misguided "gun free zones" where the Bill of Rights has been tossed out and innocent people pay the price. Notice they're school shootings and such, not police station shootings, gun range shootings, hunting store shootings, etc.

To me it's the most fundamental version of what should be common sense: prohibit good people from stopping bad people, and you have a national tragedy on your hands instead of a blip on the news wire about a psycho that was shot and killed by a math teacher after the attacker began to open fire in the cafeteria. I'll gladly take the risks of dangerous freedom over peaceful victimhood. Yes, there are risks--look how many people die on the road every day--but ask the parents of dead children at Sandy Hook whether they would rather one child die by the errant shot of a teacher who stopped the gunman than all of the children and teachers die as they did. Of course they would. Ask them if it was their child that paid the price to save all the others, and they would probably still say yes. But if it actually did go down that way people would immediately pounce on it as a blindingly obvious example of why faculty and staff should never be allowed to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. It's maddening.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferso ... -quotation

Here's a bit from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison. I cannot agree more or with more deep and heartfelt sincerity.
Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787 wrote:Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it's evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44137
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:09 am

Thoughts? Two weeks ago today we had an armed man here in San Antonio shoot his ex girlfriend in a restaurant, and followed the screaming crowd to a theater next door. As he began to try to starting shooting others, an off duty sheriff's deputy with her CHL shot the man 4 times, stopping him from killing anyone else. I'm sure you all heard about it, because on the heels of Sandy Hook it made international headlines as a prime example of how Sandy Hook could've been prevented. Oh...wait.

In the mean time we're facing the most backwards and pointless affront to the Constitution in many years in Feinstein's proposed bill. It's just ridiculous, infuriatingly so. What do you think about it?

Image
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Rorschach
The Immoral Immortal
Posts: 17691
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:35 am
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: The second amendment

Post by Rorschach » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:49 am

Thoughts? I think it's reasonable. The spirit of the second amendment is retained with the proviso that the amount of shots available to you at any one time is limited, which is something I thought sensible.

What's the alternative? And what's 'grandfathering'?
To Let

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44137
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:49 pm

Grandfathering in this context is if you own a banned firearm already you get to keep it. This keeps it from becoming the same level of book-burning--err, door to door disarmament at government gunpoint.

It's not reasonable, Rors, any more than it would be to electronically govern all personal vehicles to a maximum of 20 mph...so as to avoid getaway vehicles for bank robberies. To limit all phone calls to 30 seconds so as to keep terrorists from effectively communicating. Really, it's like the government shutting down the press and taking over all news and entertainment under the guise not of suppressing freedom of speech and of of the press but because they say they'll make sure Janet Jackson's boob doesn't show up on the Super Bowl half time show again and promise not to abuse their new power.

It's pointless and ineffective, based entirely on ignorance and backward thinking. It will do nothing to stop the events at Sandy Hook. If this sad and angry attempt cut the Bill of Rights off at the waist (it's only the knees at the moment) actually makes it to law, it will cause far more violence than it was ever intended to prevent, both in firefights with government enforcers who come to confiscate unregistered firearms and take prisoner those who fail to comply and in further exposing those who sheepishly comply.

It doesn't matter. There is no evidence--nor any sound thinking based on any rational thought--that such a ban would do anything at all to decrease violent crime, much less wackos flipping out. They KNOW this to be the case, the politicians like Feinstein, but they see it as an opportunity to further the Central Planning agenda. Freedom is risky, so let's sacrifice it for the hope of a little but more security. Let's lock ourselves in a padded cell so we can avoid injury. I have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms. You must make a HELLUVA good case as to why you would infringe on that right before I can allow you to do so, the same as any other right. Instead, we get draconian fluff and outright lies regarding the actual effectiveness of the 1994 gun ban, which expired in 2004 (greetings, 2013!) with no Armageddon resulting.

There is so much wrong not only with the ridiculousness of the bill's contents but the spirit in which it exists.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

ampersand
Crazy Person
Posts: 7404
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:43 pm
Real Name: Andrew Kunz
Gender: Male
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: The second amendment

Post by ampersand » Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:59 am

What would you recommend, Deacon, then? Nothing to be done? I agree with Rorsch that the proposal as detailed by your graphic does seem to be quite reasonable. I certainly understand your perspective that you feel this is curtailing legitimate gun owners while the criminals and insane go Scott free. And I don't think this proposal is going to go anywhere with NRA heavily entrenched in rural states. (This debate is different in that there more of a rural/urban flair to this than you think. I live in heavily liberal Oregon, and there's like a shooting gallery down the street. In fact, I think they just set off an earth shattering ka-boom to ring in 2013.)

Quite frankly, big cities and most urban and suburban areas don't get the 2nd Amendment. City mayors have crime problems which they feel would be better deterred by a suppression of guns. Rural areas, where there is a more of a "defend for yourself" attitude, like and want to own guns, mostly for the hunting, but also for the defensive mechanism.

Rick Reilly made the point of that line seems to be these military-style weapons which are used instead of the usual methods used for hunting. My brother-in-law hunts, and I rarely see him hunt with the kinds of weapons banned from the 1994 assault weapons. A gun with a scope is probably the extent I see him hunt with.

I certainly understand the desire to be able to defend yourself. Half the people I work with have concealed weapons permits, so if an attack happens at Xerox, I know the email team will probably nail down the bastards. Just duck behind the desk and let them go hunt. But from what I understand the concealed weapons mostly are hand guns.

And this is what bothers me by the whole debate. To paraphrase Gandhi, to fight fire with fire, and the world only gets hotter. Regardless of which side of the debate one chooses, the options seems to degenerate into an option to which degree of violence will be necessary to resolve the problem. To me, we have a culture which seems to glorify violence even when does not mean to. And that problem does not seem to be one where a second amendment pissing match will resolve it.

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44137
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:01 pm

ampersand wrote:What would you recommend, Deacon, then? Nothing to be done?
Done about what? And by whom? Those are the important questions.
City mayors have crime problems which they feel would be better deterred by a suppression of guns.
The city mayors to which you refer tend to be good little Democrats, and since they don't seem to be able to overcome human nature by bribing it like they thought, they adopt the company line that good people with guns are the problem, in order to give them a scapegoat and to pretend to be "doing something."

You asked whether anything should be done. I'd really like to know the answer to the question of "done about what?" because it's so integral to the discussion. As I've said previously, the answer is to stop setting up tragically misguided free-kill zones (i.e. "gun-free zones" where by rule only bad guys can have weapons) and step back out of the way of good people who can and in many cases will stop bad people. THAT is the solution to these incredibly rare but insanely spectacular acts of lunacy.

Your Gandhi quote is misapplied. It only applies in particular circumstances, and certainly not to lunatics. Please describe how the world would get hotter if the columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, or other shooters were allowed to be stopped instead of being given free reign by the government and school administrators. You want the world to get hotter? Fight freedom with power. Remember, the Bill of Rights is a series of clearly delineated things the government cannot do, guarantees of freedoms that shall not be infringed. But they're not treated that way so much anymore.
seems to be these military-style weapons which are used instead of the usual methods used for hunting.
There are two important things at work here. First, those who do not believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state--which let's be honest is the crux of the matter--are the ones coming up with this whole new "military-style weapons" business since the much more spectacular term "assault weapons" was already shown to be nothing but trading in fear. This is at least a more reserved way to do it, but it's still ignorant. There remain broad, sweeping limitations to our Second Amendment rights, and they mostly make it either impossible or extremely painful and expensive to acquire military weapons. Which is a shame. The people in revolutionary America had "military style weapons" and used them to secure our freedom from King George. Despite how bitter and deadly the Civil War was, there was no move afterward to strip the people in confederate states of their "military style weapons" that had barely cooled down from being used in "military style combat" against the actual military. Think about that for a second, the depth to which even an America limping toward recovery after the Civil War "let that crisis go to waste" because they still believed strongly in the Bill of Rights in its entirety.

Whether a firearm is used--or rather looks similar to those used--by military, which includes all manner of handguns, rifles, shotguns, pretty much every firearm known to man, is not and cannot be a limiting factor. It's irrelevant.

Second, hunting has nothing to do with it. Yes, I occasionally hunt with a semi-auto rifle when appropriate. Yes, suffocating our constitutionally guaranteed rights will unnecessarily limit hunters, but that's just a side note. The Second Amendment isn't about hunting. And the argument sure as hell isn't any kind of way to stop bad people. If it were, there would be no murders or heroin, you know, since they're illegal. The Sandy Hook shooter did not legally carry that weapon onto school grounds. Apparently the law isn't a force field. Only people can exert force, and when only bad people are allowed to exert force, they do bad things with it.
My brother-in-law hunts, and I rarely see him hunt with the kinds of weapons banned from the 1994 assault weapons.
By the way, on this topic, states have gradually started loosening up what they even allow for hunting, and for which kind of game. When the 94 ban expired, but somehow Armageddon didn't hit, they started trying out slowly letting people have a little of their freedom back, a little at a time. In fact, Texas FINALLY this year OK'ed hunting whitetail and other game animals with suppressors. It was banned for a long time because of Hollywood, who trained Americans to think that suppressors were some form of dark magic used by assassins. In a fun role reversal, in Europe hunting game animals with a rifle *without* being suppressed is considered reckless and rude. Despite all this, the streets have yet to flow with the blood of good people overwhelmed by a bad person with a suppressed "military style weapon." The only exceptions occur when those good people are not allowed to stop the bad person.
But from what I understand the concealed weapons mostly are hand guns.
That's an unfortunate government limitation, not a Second Amendment limitation. Or rather it's an unfortunate limitation of our rights as executed by a government that says your freedoms take a back seat to our power, exercised under the guise of increasing security.
To me, we have a culture which seems to glorify violence even when does not mean to. And that problem does not seem to be one where a second amendment pissing match will resolve it.
Whether or not that's true, it is a question of contributing to the betterment of the culture, not a problem with the Second Amendment, which is not there to solve any societal problems but to ensure that the people can defend themselves from bad people, whether uniformed or otherwise. You can glorify violence or not, but you can defend yourself against it--as long as your government sees fit to allow you to do so, apparently.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
collegestudent22
Crazy Person
Posts: 6886
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:02 am
Gender: Male
Location: Gallifrey

Re: The second amendment

Post by collegestudent22 » Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:02 am

Rorschach wrote:Thoughts? I think it's reasonable. The spirit of the second amendment is retained with the proviso that the amount of shots available to you at any one time is limited, which is something I thought sensible.
Just for the record, the "military characteristic" thing is merely cosmetic:

Image

The registration aspect is especially dangerous in light of instances where the newspapers have endangered the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, by leaking who owns a gun and, therefore, who does not, in areas where this is already done.
To paraphrase Gandhi, to fight fire with fire, and the world only gets hotter.
Mahatma Ghandi, An Autobiography, pg 446 wrote:Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.
Count Axel Oxenstierna wrote:Dost thou not know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed?

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44137
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:56 am

I wonder how deep a game is being played here. I'm thinking Feinstein is being set up (perhaps willingly) to fail, shooting for the moon, with the idea of backtracking to a "common sense" compromise. I can't believe enough people have lost such fundamental faith in the Bill of Rights that they can not only be lead to kool-aid but made to drink it in, to go beyond the security theater of the TSA to honestly believe this kind of approach is what will keep them safe from a lottery-odds lunatic.
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Deacon
Shining Adonis
Posts: 44137
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:00 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Lakehills, TX

Re: The second amendment

Post by Deacon » Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:26 pm

Image

Here are a couple of handy signs to put up for those who believe otherwise.

Image

Image
The follies which a man regrets the most in his life are those which he didn't commit when he had the opportunity. - Helen Rowland, A Guide to Men, 1922

User avatar
Rorschach
The Immoral Immortal
Posts: 17691
Joined: Tue Feb 18, 2003 7:35 am
Gender: Male
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: The second amendment

Post by Rorschach » Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:38 pm

Deacon wrote: It's not reasonable, Rors
I honestly can't understand why not. I'm beginning to think I never will.
Even accepting that guns are necessary for protection, I can't see why you need the ability to fire dozens or hundreds of bullets in quick succession. Maybe I'm being overly simplistic or I'm missing something but the only reason I can see for owning a machine gun is if your government really does decide to behave in a hostile manner towards its own citizens. But then as someone else (Cid?) has pointed out; if that becomes the case then a thousand bullets aren't going to do much more than slow them down.
any more than it would be to electronically govern all personal vehicles to a maximum of 20 mph...
But psychos aren't using cars for massacring large groups of people. Oddly, when you think that it must be quicker to plough through a queue at a bus stop than it would be to shoot the equivalent number of people.
ampersand wrote: What would you recommend, Deacon, then? Nothing to be done?
Done about what?
I asked the same thing. I was talking about the amount of mass shootings in America. I personally believe that if that's the cost of complete gun freedom then it's too high.

I understand this thinking that outlawing guns means that only criminals have them. I don't see why tighter gun control - such as the propositions you were garnering opinions on - means the same thing. Say if guns become more difficult to acquire, then they're going to become more expensive. The average mugger or house-breaker is going to have more difficulty getitng hold of one, no? Surely evidenced by their profession, these kinds of people do not have a wealth of disposable income.

I'm not long home from some days away and I haven't really heard much of the story, but there's been a shooting in Switzerland I think. I believe the shooter was fired upon by police and arrested.

I'm not being obtuse. I'm tired and have been driving for some hours: what do guns have to do with 9/11?
To Let

bagheadinc
Bay Harbor Butcher
Posts: 7928
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:25 pm
Real Name: Matthew
Gender: Male
Location: Fruitland, MD

Re: The second amendment

Post by bagheadinc » Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:59 pm

Rorschach wrote:I can't see why you need the ability to fire dozens or hundreds of bullets in quick succession.
Bad aim?
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl (Research) and 0 guests