What makes you so sure that these wing-nutz would have just sat around knitting socks or tea-cozies instead of going out and procuring the firearm(s) they wanted illegally if they were not able to go and purchases them legally?
If one of these guys tried to purchase a gun, it probably rings some alarm bells somewhere, so that another psychologist can look into it. Id would do nothing to prevent the violence, but it might work as an early warning system.
Given the sheer volume of gun violence by people that are already unable to possess firearms, it seems that it would be fairly easy to obtain one illegally...
It obviously is. I don´t see what bearing this has on having some professional evaluating if someone should have legally access to guns.
We have a plethora of gun laws in place already, and like any law, we have those few who disregard the law. Adding more laws only further restricts those of us who abide by the law...
I don´t see where the restriction lies here. If you abide by the law and are seen as being fit to have gun, it will not stop you from owning a gun. Some kind of licence, yes, but then, you need a licence to drive car as well - and hopefully, it is checked somewhat if the potential driver is fit for driving.
|
If you are not dangerously insane how does not letting dangerously insane people buy guns restrict you?
Because our system is not perfect...
Just look at our no-fly policy at airports...
There are children, children mind you who are not permitted to board an airplane because their name appears on some "no-fly" list...
Like-wise, there WILL BE law abiding citizens who are kept from buying firearms for the same reason (name shared with some nut-job yahoo)...
And when this happens in cases like this, it is no easy matter of getting it cleared up; as it is extremely time consuming and usually expensive (due to the need of having to hire lawyers and paying other legal fees such as court costs)...
Sure this still happens, but why add yet another possibility for this to occur?
Just because I have nothing to hide, does not mean I want somebody poking their nose into my business, where it does not belong!
|
|
you need a licence to drive car as well - and hopefully, it is checked somewhat if the potential driver is fit for driving.
Difference there, is that it is a privilege to drive, NOT a right...
But going back to guns, some states, such as New York, require one to have a license to own a firearm. And you know what? New York still suffers from gun violence...
My point is, we already have laws in place, and by and large, they work...
And like ANY OTHER LAW, there are people who disregard the law and do as they please regardless...
you need a licence to drive car as well - and hopefully, it is checked somewhat if the potential driver is fit for driving.Difference there, is that it is a privilege to drive, NOT a right...
But going back to guns, some states, such as New York, require one to have a license to own a firearm. And you know what? New York still suffers from gun violence...
A very large segment of New York states population lives in New York city. New York cities mass transit system is actually connected to two other states, who have different firearm laws. It's also easy to hop a train and go to several other states, within 2 hours.
So, it isn't just New York's gun laws that impact New York.
|
you need a licence to drive car as well - and hopefully, it is checked somewhat if the potential driver is fit for driving.Difference there, is that it is a privilege to drive, NOT a right...
But going back to guns, some states, such as New York, require one to have a license to own a firearm. And you know what? New York still suffers from gun violence...
My point is, we already have laws in place, and by and large, they work...
And like ANY OTHER LAW, there are people who disregard the law and do as they please regardless...
Really. Three schizophrenics on shooting sprees with "legally" purchased firearms and ammunition say they don't seem to work that well.
It is a right to not be detained, but we give police and mental health professions the ability to override the right not to be detained pending approval from a judge.
And if you commit a crime, even if it has nothing to do with firearms, you can have your right to bear arms rescinded.
If you want the same process for preventing severely mentally ill people from buying firearms which they then use for mass killings...
You argue that someones "right" to have a semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine needs a higher standard of protection than a persons right to not be detained?
Is that really the argument you are making?
you need a licence to drive car as well - and hopefully, it is checked somewhat if the potential driver is fit for driving.Difference there, is that it is a privilege to drive, NOT a right..
Just because the constitution was written before there were cars, otherwise, driving would probably be a "right" as well. ;-)
The Supreme Court ruled that some gun control is legally possible, even if the right to bear arms individually stands. This is what this thread is about - controlling guns in order to (hopefully) reduce gun violence.
|
|
Really. Three schizophrenics on shooting sprees with "legally" purchased firearms and ammunition say they don't seem to work that well.
Three schizophrenics on shooting sprees does not make it the norm either. The VAST majority of these incidents are perpetrated by people ALREADY prevented from owning firearms in the first place! Don't make a mountain out of a mole-hill by saying these three were the norm...
It is a right to not be detained, but we give police and mental health professions the ability to override the right not to be detained pending approval from a judge.
And if you commit a crime, even if it has nothing to do with firearms, you can have your right to bear arms rescinded.
And bread is made from wheat...
These are facts we all know. But what you are suggesting is to deny someone a RIGHT based on something they MIGHT do...
The police do not have the right to detain someone because they think that person might commit a future crime (that would be the 4th Amendment)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
So, some desk-jokey should not be given the ability to deny someone a right based on their opinion of some possible future action either...
If you want the same process for preventing severely mentally ill people from buying firearms which they then use for mass killings...
I think that if someone is deemed too mentally ill to buy a firearm, then possibly, that person is too unstable to be allowed outside of a hospital without proper supervision...
You argue that someones "right" to have a semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine needs a higher standard of protection than a persons right to not be detained?
Well, the founding fathers did make the "Right to Bear Arms" the 2nd Amendment, and "Search and Seizure" the 4th Amendment (and placement of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution was no accident)...
Is that really the argument you are making?
However, no. The argument I am making is that my rights should not be infringed because a small portion of the population is incapable of properly interacting with society at large...
|
|
The Supreme Court ruled that some gun control is legally possible, even if the right to bear arms individually stands.
Yes, the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the individual’s right to bear arms...
And in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment also included the "Due Process" clause of the 14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, I'm sorry, but some psychiatrist should not be allowed to deny anyone a right because they are of the opinion that said person MIGHT, might do something rash in some future scenario...
If someone is too unstable to be out with the rest of society, then that person needs to be under close supervision...
|
|
You can't have it both ways. You can't say we need to closely supervise people who are unstable but we can't prevent them from buying firearms.
That is like saying babysitting your children doesn't involve not letting them play with knives.
There are many people who are unstable, but don't reach the level where society is willing both financially and morally to institutionalize them, but at the same time they shouldn't have access to guns.
|
|
Involuntary detention can come from driving on a suspended license, depending on the state.
In my early 20's I was involuntarily detained for missing a traffic hearing.
The mass killings are just the ones that make the news. Crazy people shoot people all the time, it just doesn't make the national news unless they actually kill double digits worth. Wounding is a right.
The fact is involuntary institution happens fairly regularly in most communities, and when many of those people are discharged it is for financial rather than clinical purposes thanks to our wonderful health care system.
Having people who are known to be dangerous, but who don't reach the level of requiring involuntary commitment not be able to buy guns is a no-brainer.
However we should be able to agree that crazy people shouldn't have guns.
And we do. We merely disagree in what to do about it.
We agree that Neo nazi groups shouldn't exist. Does that mean we have the government break them up?
We agree that people shouldn't teach holocaust denial. Should licensed professional teachers of history (who's job it is to know history) be able to shut them up ?
And we should also be able to agree that licensed mental health professionals should be able to diagnose what "crazy" is.
What they do is too subjective to put that much trust in.
This should be a no brainer, particularly when Loughner, Cho, and Holmes all would have been restricted from buying guns (and if I had my way flagged as attempting purchase) and well...that would have been better than what happened.
It is not. While your goals are laudible you are completely blowing off the cons of the plan.
1) Its patently not constitutional. It violates the second amendment, it will violates the 4th if you want it to do any good, several clauses of the fifth amendment, 6th amendment right to a trial. The government ignoring the constitution is not a good precedent to set.
2) you WILL get false positives. You will have people who aren't crazy accused of being nuts.
3) You will either have to take the guns away from people when they're diagnosed or do nearly nothing, because most people acquire the guns before they get to this point. This could go very, very badly as nothing convinces an armed paranoid schizophrenic that the government is out to get them like sending armed members of the government to their house.
4) You will be stuck doing nearly nothing anyway. Unless you limit guns at the manufacturing level they're far, far too easy to get a hold of. You can buy illegal guns, have your wife/spouse/family member/significant other order for you, borrow their credit card or id etc.
5) You will have gun owners that feel depressed or angry become less likely to get the help they need. The first time the system screws up.. and it WILL screw up, fox news will be blaring about Obama's stalanist citizenry panel coming to take your guns.
No. Brainer.
Only if you're not thinking.
Involuntary detention can come from driving on a suspended license, depending on the state.
In my early 20's I was involuntarily detained for missing a traffic hearing.
The mass killings are just the ones that make the news. Crazy people shoot people all the time, it just doesn't make the national news unless they actually kill double digits worth. Wounding is a right.
The fact is involuntary institution happens fairly regularly in most communities, and when many of those people are discharged it is for financial rather than clinical purposes thanks to our wonderful health care system.
Having people who are known to be dangerous, but who don't reach the level of requiring involuntary commitment not be able to buy guns is a no-brainer.
If you had a mentally ill person living with them can be frustrating and even the person they are living with may do something stupid with the gun as well. Living with a mentally ill person I don't want to be able to buy a gun.
|
|
You can't have it both ways. You can't say we need to closely supervise people who are unstable but we can't prevent them from buying firearms.
I never said that! The implication to my statement was that if they are under close supervision, they are not out buying guns...
There are many people who are unstable, but don't reach the level where society is willing both financially and morally to institutionalize them, but at the same time they shouldn't have access to guns.
[rhetorical question]And why shouldn't that person have access to guns?[/rhetorical question]
If a person is deemed "too unstable" to warrant not being allowed access to guns, then that person should also be deemed "too unstable" to be allowed to mingle unsupervised in society at large...
But you want to move the bar down to the lowest common denominator, and make a blanket law that would affect those that abide by the law more so than it would the people that it should actually apply to...
.
Remember, the greater your skill with your weapon, the smaller your
Danger Zone will be, but only if that skill is coupled with good mental
conditioning, tactical planning and alertness, because no amount of skill
will do you any good unless you know that you're in trouble.
Skill at arms and proper mental attitude. that's the combination that
will make you the winner
.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind repealing the 2nd amendment.
I wouldn't mind repealing the 2nd amendment.
Good luck assembling a 2/3 majority. While we're daydreaming, I wouldn't mind winning the lottery.
Agreed, it'll never happen. But it should.
I disagree.
|
|
I wouldn't mind repealing the 2nd amendment.
Become a Congressman, and then propose a new amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment.
Good luck to you in getting your two-thirds vote by BOTH houses in order to ratify this new amendment of yours!
Then of course it has to be certified...
Easy as pie, no!
I guess that's the reason why to date; only one Amendment to the Constitution has EVER been repealed...
*EDIT*
Ninja'd by Kirth
I disagree.
Its not that I necessarily want to take all guns away. Its just that the existence of the amendment means that we can't have a meaningful conversation about gun control that makes sense. It ends being "you can't take my guns away, because then you're not treating me like a human being".
That is a patently false assertion, since I've treated lots of people like human beings, even when they didn't own guns. Gun ownership is not a basic human right, but we can't talk about it otherwise, since it's enshrined in the constitution.
edit: Last line was a little antagonistic, so I removed it. But seriously, please assume I passed high school civics, mostly because I did.
Do you think police should jail or even kill someone simply for owning (and never using) a machine gun, because they might kill someone at some point?
Edit- Just want to clarify. Im against pretty much all "preventative" laws. I dont believe that we should be doing violence upon people unless they have actually victimised someone else.
Do you think guns are like nuclear bombs or is this just more trollish hyperbole. Cmon Jeff, I expect better from you.
Edit-If you are actually serious, I believe that I have come out in support of a (unfortuantely hypothetical) constitutional amendment exempting nuclear weapons and other "mass destruction" type weaponry from the 2nd amendment in other threads that you have been a part of.
|
you need a licence to drive car as well - and hopefully, it is checked somewhat if the potential driver is fit for driving.Difference there, is that it is a privilege to drive, NOT a right...
But going back to guns, some states, such as New York, require one to have a license to own a firearm. And you know what? New York still suffers from gun violence...
My point is, we already have laws in place, and by and large, they work...
And like ANY OTHER LAW, there are people who disregard the law and do as they please regardless...
Really. Three schizophrenics on shooting sprees with "legally" purchased firearms and ammunition say they don't seem to work that well.
It is a right to not be detained, but we give police and mental health professions the ability to override the right not to be detained pending approval from a judge.
And if you commit a crime, even if it has nothing to do with firearms, you can have your right to bear arms rescinded.
If you want the same process for preventing severely mentally ill people from buying firearms which they then use for mass killings...
You argue that someones "right" to have a semi-automatic pistol with an extended magazine needs a higher standard of protection than a persons right to not be detained?
Is that really the argument you are making?
Maybe restrict the crazy then. they can always get bomb making materials, vehicles, arson supplies and illegal guns and do the damage anyway. Get them out of the public and they cannot harm anyone.
|
|
I disagree.Its not that I necessarily want to take all guns away. Its just that the existence of the amendment means that we can't have a meaningful conversation about gun control that makes sense. It ends being "you can't take my guns away, because then you're not treating me like a human being".
That is a patently false assertion, since I've treated lots of people like human beings, even when they didn't own guns. Gun ownership is not a basic human right, but we can't talk about it otherwise, since it's enshrined in the constitution.
edit: Last line was a little antagonistic, so I removed it. But seriously, please assume I passed high school civics, mostly because I did.
Self defense is a basic human right. our founders knew this, sad that you don't
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To further expound on my thoughts on the posts so far, hoping to further "meaningful" discussion. Ciretose, while I could get behind your intent regarding your solution, it is a simplistic solution (and I say simplistic with zero snark, just the only word I could think of.), that more than likely would cause more problems than it creates. In other words, I can see and agree with your intent, just not your solution.
As far as second amendment killing meaningful discussion. To a limited extent, this is correct. But it only kills it if you fail to consider why the second amendment is there. The second amendment is there to allow for one to fight against nations (including our own) if necessary. I'd happily give up rights to carry automatic weaponry, if and only if the various armies and police forces of the world agreed to give up theirs as well. Just because someone feels that taking away their ability to defend themselves from other people AND states is dehumanising does not mean that they arent engaging in meaningful discussion. Only that they disagree with you.
Hey its all good. I asked and you answered. Thats the problem with this series of tubes. I assumed your intent and was wrong. My apologies.
Self defense is a basic human right. our founders knew this, sad that you don'tI disagree.Its not that I necessarily want to take all guns away. Its just that the existence of the amendment means that we can't have a meaningful conversation about gun control that makes sense. It ends being "you can't take my guns away, because then you're not treating me like a human being".
That is a patently false assertion, since I've treated lots of people like human beings, even when they didn't own guns. Gun ownership is not a basic human right, but we can't talk about it otherwise, since it's enshrined in the constitution.
edit: Last line was a little antagonistic, so I removed it. But seriously, please assume I passed high school civics, mostly because I did.
I remember about 2 weeks ago, I posted how I've traveled the world without a gun and been attacked exactly once. That includes a few places that are known for their crime and places that I, a 6' white male who's muscles definitely look soft, stick out like a sore thumb (the one place I got attacked, I fit in perfectly, go figure).
Can you use a gun to defend yourself? Sure, but once you're in that kind of situation, the odds of getting hurt increase by orders of magnitude, so the gun isn't actually a form of self defense. Its only useful, when you are already in a dangerous situation. Self-awareness, knowledge of body language and perception are far greater tools for self defense than a gun is.
My home town, Minneapolis, has had crime problems in the downtown area the past few months. I still walk through there whenever I want, unarmed. I know how to walk right, I know how to talk right and I know what to look for in brewing danger. I've done the same in LA and Chicago too.
Sure, I could get killed. But I could also get shot by a stray bullet sitting in my house, which has happened twice in the past 12 months to kids in Minneapolis.
This self defense stuff is garbage. Plus, it gets in the way of us solving the problem of trying to get guns off the street.
Saying "they have guns, so I want one too" is reactionary and tells you me aren't actually interested in solving the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you somehow dont see how telling others that their views are "garbage" blocks "meaningful" discussion?
If you want to have a serious discussion about getting guns off the street, I suggest you read what houstonderek had to say about it.If you want to guns off the street, then you have to get people off the street and working and happy and fulfilled and then the guns will follow. But thats hard, so lets make some very very easily abused laws and claim that anyone who points out the flaws in said laws are reactionary or have outdated garbage views.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
you need a licence to drive car as well - and hopefully, it is checked somewhat if the potential driver is fit for driving.Difference there, is that it is a privilege to drive, NOT a right...
As a non-US citizen, I find it completely, utterly baffling that you consider it a privilege to drive, but a right to own a gun. That's completely f*&$ing nuts, in a civilised world. If you lived on a frontier, or in disputed territory, or had any need at all for guns, it would make sense.
In Australia, if you are found without a legally owned and registered firearm, you go on that No-Fly list. We had massive roundups of unregistered firearms in an amnesty-like situation, so no one got in trouble for handing in their firearms. I heartily thank our government for protecting its people. Look at our gun-related fatalities per capita.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you somehow dont see how telling others that their views are "garbage" blocks "meaningful" discussion?
It doesn't. Because I'm pointing out how the meaningful conversation is already blocked. So, to the pro-guns guys, it doesn't matter what I say, because you guys don't want to hear it. You think a gun is the ultimate form of self defense and don't want to hear anything against it. The conversation was over before I said anything, so what is the use of me tempering my language to make you feel better, that's what you have a gun for.
As a side note, I am a supporter of hunting rights and the tools used for hunting. My issue is mostly with handguns. Their primary purpose is for killing people. Yes, you can engage in other activities with them, and certain handguns are designed for those activities, but for the large majority of handguns you find in America, their primary use as a tool is to hurt/kill a human. I think we'd be better off not having so many tools that are designed and used primarily to kill humans.
If you're watching two kids for the day and all of a sudden you see one try to stab the other with a knife. First thing you do, remove the knife from the situation. Second thing you do, try and figure out what happened to cause this situation.
Remove handguns from the murder equation in America. Once we figure out the real problem and fix it, let people have them back.
Edit: har, post 187 in the thread.
|
|
I find it completely, utterly baffling that you consider it a privilege to drive, but a right to own a gun.
Um, that's not opinion...
The first 10 Amendments to the constitution are RIGHTS given to us as citizens of The United States. In fact, these first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are collectively known as The Bill of Rights and cannot be taken away from us or revoked....
Conversely...
From an early age, we are told that driving a motor vehicle is a privilege given to us by the State we live in, and not a right, therefore it can be taken away from us...
And I think we're done here.
Edit to address your edit regarding two kids knife fighting. I agree. What you are proposing is banning all knives instead of just the knife of the kid who stabbed the other one. The situation in your analogy ALREADY exists.
As far as handguns. Yup they were designed primarily to kill people. They have no hunting applications that a rifle couldnt do better. Whats your point? Again, the second has nothing to do with hunting.
|
|
And you somehow dont see how telling others that their views are "garbage" blocks "meaningful" discussion?It doesn't. Because I'm pointing out how the meaningful conversation is already blocked. So, to the pro-guns guys, it doesn't matter what I say, because you guys don't want to hear it. You think a gun is the ultimate form of self defense and don't want to hear anything against it. The conversation was over before I said anything, so what is the use of me tempering my language to make you feel better, that's what you have a gun for.
As a side note, I am a supporter of hunting rights and the tools used for hunting. My issue is mostly with handguns. Their primary purpose is for killing people. Yes, you can engage in other activities with them, and certain handguns are designed for those activities, but for the large majority of handguns you find in America, their primary use as a tool is to hurt/kill a human. I think we'd be better off not having so many tools that are designed and used primarily to kill humans.
If you're watching two kids for the day and all of a sudden you see one try to stab the other with a knife. First thing you do, remove the knife from the situation. Second thing you do, try and figure out what happened to cause this situation.
Remove handguns from the murder equation in America. Once we figure out the real problem and fix it, let people have them back.
Edit: har, post 187 in the thread.
Very telling that you want "daddy" government to take the weapons from the "child" subjects.
Tell you what skippy, figure out how to end violence and crime and we can talk about you getting my guns.Edit to add. "you see one try to stab" hey genius, the first thing the law does when someone tries to misuse a gun is take it away, even if only temporary. Adults can be trusted with guns much as most kids are fine with knives, most are smart enough to use them right and you punish the misuse.
Seeing as 95% of child care workers are women, it'd probably be "mommy" government.
|
|
My issue is mostly with handguns.
Part of the Supreme Court's ruling on D.C. v. Heller, was that it was unconstitutional to ban an entire class of firearms (using handguns as the example)...
This (coupled with McDonald v. Chicago) also set a precedent to make this same argument against states where certain semi-automatic rifles (like AR-15's) are banned as well...
No, and you're demonstrating exactly why we can't do that.
"a known Neo-Nazi with criminal history"
Do you have anything for a "Criminal history" other than drunk driving? CNN not that long ago said there was nothing in his record that would have kept him from legally buying the gun.
You don' want him to have a gun because he's a racist nazi. While that's more than understandable, giving a segment of the population the power to declare people they disagree with crazy and take away their rights has never gone well. Its blatantly unconstitutional.
By all means, ban pistols (or treat them the way we do machine guns) but you can't just outsource a constitutional violation to a non governmental segment of the population with a degree and think that somehow makes it ok.
Throw the baby out with the bath water much? Okay, so being a neo-Nazi doesn't get you put on the list. That doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea to put people on who are proven mentally unstable by a medical professional.
That people have a right to their opinions, however, foul, is true. That this right precludes other dangerous people who are not suffering from opinions, but who are an actual danger, from the list, is cockybullpoopoo.
And I think we're done here.
Edit to address your edit regarding two kids knife fighting. I agree. What you are proposing is banning all knives instead of just the knife of the kid who stabbed the other one. The situation in your analogy ALREADY exists.
As far as handguns. Yup they were designed primarily to kill people. They have no hunting applications that a rifle couldnt do better. Whats your point? Again, the second has nothing to do with hunting.
You'll note above, I'm not in favor of the second amendment either. I'm cool with all the other amendments, but I don't think that one is doing us any favors right now.
Even looking at the original intent, protecting the people from a tyrannical government. If you look at the statistics, non-violent resistance/revolution has a greater chance of success and a greater amount of change imposed on a country.
Guns aren't even the most effective method of protecting rights, and their existence and prevalence just increases the chances that someone might try to infringe on yours.
Yes, that is the legal state of things in America.
I also find that baffling.
Though I'm not sure I'd support "the right to drive" either. We need to kick the automobile habit more than the gun habit, even if we have to restructure our society and change our habits to do so. They kill far more people and do more damage to the planet as a whole.
Turns out that we already restructured our society to support the "right to drive"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit that I find it fascinating that some people who will give up any number of other rights without protest, immediately fly into a blinding rage when someone suggests restricting their massive arsenals in any way. That suggests to me that it's less about rights and more about the perception of power that firearms provide to otherwise powerless people.
This isn't true of all guns-rights advocates by a long stetch, nor of many people on this thread (Thewhiteknife and BT, for example, are remarkably consistent in their anger against the removing of any liberties from citizens, an attitude I share with them).
Hang around some other 'net discussions on the topic, though, and the "guns >> everything else" attitude is quite prevalent.
And I think we're done here.
Edit to address your edit regarding two kids knife fighting. I agree. What you are proposing is banning all knives instead of just the knife of the kid who stabbed the other one. The situation in your analogy ALREADY exists.
As far as handguns. Yup they were designed primarily to kill people. They have no hunting applications that a rifle couldnt do better. Whats your point? Again, the second has nothing to do with hunting.
You'll note above, I'm not in favor of the second amendment either. I'm cool with all the other amendments, but I don't think that one is doing us any favors right now.
Even looking at the original intent, protecting the people from a tyrannical government. If you look at the statistics, non-violent resistance/revolution has a greater chance of success and a greater amount of change imposed on a country.
Guns aren't even the most effective method of protecting rights, and their existence and prevalence just increases the chances that someone might try to infringe on yours.
See this is how you have a dialogue. It is true that non-violent change is more successful. The second amendment is for when youve tried the non-violent route, and it didnt work. Ive noticed that you dont like the second amendment, and I invite you to try to have it repealed. I merely posited that my viewpoint that I disagree and would work to block you. I dont think your viewpoint is garbage. I just dont agree with it.
|
|
I'm pointing out how the meaningful conversation is already blocked. So, to the pro-guns guys, it doesn't matter what I say, because you guys don't want to hear it.
Actually, in threads like this, I've found the reverse to be true...
We "pro-gun guys" mention that others things in this life are far more dangerous than guns (like drunk driving), and you try to nip it in the bud by saying things like guns and cars having nothing to do with one another...
Yadda yadda yadda...
Speaking only for myself, I am closed only to the passing of more laws that mean nothing to a criminal, absolutely zero to the criminal, and only serve to restrict me, the law abiding citizen in the hopes of catching the few, the very FEW whack-jobs that somehow managed to fall between the cracks and were able to buy a firearm when they shouldn't of been able to...
I have to admit that I find it fascinating that some people who will give up any number of other rights without protest, immediately fly into a blinding rage when someone suggests restricting their massive arsenals in any way. That suggests to me that it's less about rights and more about the perception of power that firearms provide to otherwise powerless people.
This isn't true of all guns-rights advocates by a long stetch, nor of many people on this thread (Thewhiteknife and BT, for example, are remarkably consistent in their anger against the removing of any liberties from citizens, an attitude I share with them).
Hang around some other 'net discussions on the topic, though, and the "guns >> everything else" attitude is quite prevalent.
I agree Kirth, and thats why I love this site and these messageboards. The people that you are talking about mostly make me want to gouge my own eyes out with a live honey badger. Also, Im still voting for you.