^ love it
Heh.
I do think it’s cute how the conservative pro-firearms block in the US keeps sticking to a legal rights that have their origins in the late 1700s (talk about not wanting to evolve as a society)
Imagine if we Europeans were still sticking to the Jus Primae Noctis right today. Or the trial by combat/fire/water (he drowned, he must be innocent, oh well).
Or heaven forbid, the medieval laws regarding sexual intercourse (as in: not when the wife was menstruating, pregnant or nursing, not during easter or fasting, not on Sundays, not during the day, not whilst naked, and so on).
I just hate how people think of the Constitution as something that can be reinterpreted in ways wholly different from it’s originally intended meaning. There were documents by many of the founding fathers about gun ownership and it’s intrinsic important to the maintenance of a free republic.
Even then, you also can’t really argue with the decisions in District of Columbia vs. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
I had a conversation with a couple of people I know IRL with the road trip to go see a friend in the pen today (different story, different time, no details needed). One of them is a military nut and owns a few firearms himself. We all came to a consensus about having tighter gun regs than what actually exist now. There’s too many details, as it’ll become a wall of text. But suffice to say, what came out of it was periodic backround checks, and re-registering the weapon once the license expires or trades hands was a reasonable one.
Do I think my country should ban firearms all together? No. The chances of abolishing the second amendment are non-existant. Not to mention you need to get all of the firearms off of the streets once the ban comes into effect. It’s going to be worthless, take a look at the prohibition era.
Do I think my country should regulate firearms better? Yes.
Really what it comes down to is you as an owner, need to take care of your weapon, if it’s a mantle piece, remove the fucking firing pin, chuck it, keep it secure, something. If you have ammunition but want to keep the firing pin in the damn gun, put the bullets in a safe, or somewhere safe out of the hands of an unstable individual. As stated before, people will always slip through the cracks.
How is gun ownership intrinsic to the maintenance of a free republic?
@kenny
I think he means it incase the government goes corrupt or something which, while it is also an overused argument, does have some merits.
Oh, Christ. Get some buddies and storm the capital? You’ve gotta be kidding me. This is a civilized fucking country.
It is. I’m not saying it’ll happen, or that it should, and I think that the argument is overused alot, especially by those NRA Conservo nuts, but I will say it can happen, and it can happen probably for the wrong reasons, when not necessary.
^ This is true. The American Revolution was a bit of a fluke on the revolutionary scale. Most revolutions don’t work out nearly as cleanly (see every other fucking revolution in history, particularly the French Revolution.)
Yeah, some revolutions are rather messy, war itself is messy.
Back on topic, in your other post you said gun ownership was essential to keeping the government in check, but I disagree. As long as we have…wait for it…DEMOCRACY, then we’ll be fine, no need for violence. As long as citizens can vote, and be able to unite together to civilly impeach the officials that are being corrupt, there is no need for this 1984 counter-offensive plan way of thinking.
The argument does have a good point, as I myself don’t like the idea of the government owning guns and citizens not being allowed to, but I don’t think it’s likely or needed for that way of thought as long as the citizens have a voice.
Democracy only works if the people are not stupid.
Unfortunately most people are stupid.
True, it isn’t a perfect system, but I’d rather have a government that represents the people and are in their position because of those people rather than having their position just because (insert reason here).
Do you really believe that?
Colonial Revolutions tend to go better because the parent country just says fuck it, it isn’t worth the money. Can’t do that with your own homeland though.
You’re talking passed the rest of us. No one is claiming otherwise.
Which means that the government can call on the well-regulated (trained) militia to defend the security of the free state (i.e., “the government”) against anti-government insurrection. Arms were NEVER meant to attack the government (which is insurrection). We have a much more mightier tool than any amount of guns: It’s called the Constitution and our weapon against corruption and despotism is at the following link:
https://www.the40yearplan.com/img/110708_voting_booth.jpg
This is the most deadly tool we have against a possible totalitarian government which is why the founders were so awesome.
My point was that arguing politics is disrespectful of the lives lost. The real concern we should have is for the families of the people who died, but somehow everything turns into a politcal mess. I don’t care if you think guns should be banned or if it’s a constitutional right. There are bigger things here than whether guns should be allowed. The news isn’t that someone was shot, because that literally happens every day. The news is that 28 innocent people were murdered, CHILDREN were murdered. This is nobody’s fault but the killer’s.
I am. Guns are not made for anything but killing.
There are other ways to murder, but guns make it very fucking easy.
Yep, but they still require an outside influence, even if the guns make it much easier for the person to kill en masse and with less of a personal connection with their victims. Some dolt on the news earlier said that the man could’ve strangled the people (“are you going to ban hands now?” was the implication). Yes, he could’ve strangled them…one at a time…and it takes a while. A hell of a lot longer than pulling a trigger.
^my point. A gun doesn’t get up and kill someone without a shooter. As he says, its easier, but there must still be a will to murder.