Gun control and the second amendment....

[mom'sfolly]

argue it here and keep it off the other thread.

Posted for those who just can't help themselves.

 

[Q9]

"News Flash: The founding fathers were not psychics who could predict the future. They didn't think of everything.

The Constitution doesn't mention online identity theft. Does that mean we shouldn't protect ourselves from it? The genius of the framers of the Constitution is that they wrote a living document that was designed to be amended as we go." - Annabel

You can't amend a right.

Yes, the Constitution can change by amendment, but it's hardly the "change with the times" document you want it to be. If it were that... it might as well not exist.

A living Constitution is a dead Constitution. Behold the paradox of modern arrogance. Perhaps our right to free speech shall also change with the times. Perhaps our right to worship whom or what we please shall also change with the times. Perhaps our right to a trial shall also change with the times.

Perhaps change can be a very bad thing when directed by very bad people - or well-meaning people who don't understand the consequences of such change. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

My right to defend myself, my property, and my freedom - through the use of arms - is unchangeable. My right to speak my mind through whatever medium I choose is unchangeable. My right to disagree with my government is unchangeable. My right to worship my God is unchangeable. These are fundamental rights belonging to every human being on Earth. They can be infringed, but they cannot be taken away. They do not change with the times.

Do not presume that because my rights are described, that by changing that description one may alter or take away my rights. You cannot. Barack Obama cannot. George Bush could not. Congress cannot. My state legislature cannot. The U.N. cannot.

 

[Baymule]

I am a law abiding gun owning citizen. I taught my children gun safety first and foremost. They grew up and turned out as productive citizens in their community. I have never pointed a firearm at anybody, and if I did, it wouldn't be to talk about it.

If somebody else believes there should be no guns, then it certainly their right not to own any. But don't trample my rights to protect myself, my home, my family and my chickens. (just had to throw that in there) I remember seeing bumper stickers which read, "If Guns Are Outlawed, Then Only Criminals Would Have Guns." Ri-i-i-i-ght! If anti gun people were tyring to win me over to their side, that bumper sticker ain't gonna get it. Why would I consent to make myself defenseless so an armed criminal could break in and do whatever he pleased in my home? Newsflash anti-gunners---criminals will ALWAYS get their hands on firearms.

I am grieved that these type shootings have become the new way to commit suicide. The sad part is all the media coverage which makes it appealing to an unbalanced mind.

We could argue this until we turned blue in the face, but the lack of God in our lives, the lack of respect, love and care leads down this path. This country has been and is working overtime to take God out of our lives. When you throw God out, guess what? He leaves! When there cannot be the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse, when there cannot be a Nativity scene on state property, religion is a bad word, when there can be no public prayer, then what replaces that gaping hole in people's lives? Video games?

I realize my views might incite others, but I have the right to my beliefs and you know what? You have the right to your beliefs too. That is what this country is all about. But remember, this country was set up on Christian-Judeo principles and laws. It has worked pretty good for over 200 years. It's time we got back to our roots.

 

[redhen]

The bottom line is we NEED stricter mental health laws...

 

[Q9]

A trained officer is very different from a teenager that grabbed his dad's gun.

And you nicely ignored the previous article I posted, providing a perfect instance of a civilian protecting others with his gun. Would you like me to link you to an article showing NUMEROUS times a civilian stopped a rampage before it could get started, including saving a cop in one instance? Even if you don't, I'll post it anyway. http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens/28307/

By the way, here's what a friend of mine (a police officer and strong advocate of gun rights) wrote.

"The sole purpose of a firearm is not "to kill." The purpose of a firearm is to launch a projectile at a high rate of speed. It is the current most technologically advanced object in a technology tree that more or less started with throwing rocks, progressed to the sling, the slingshot, the bow, the crossbow, the cannon, the blunderbuss, the musket, and so on. The only real difference is the lev...
el of technology involved in each. What makes the bow viewable as primarily a recreational tool but a firearm as something different? Or even an antique firearm as opposed to a modern one? The answer is simple: it's what the police/military currently use. Are any of those other things less lethal? No. Are any of them less appropriate to use to kill something? It depends on your purpose. Honestly, there are a variety of situations where a bow is actually preferable to a gun. The issue isn't lethality, it's what we see soldiers holding or cops holstering. The issue isn't danger, as any of those things can severely maim, injure, or kill someone if misused. There are also a plethora of more dangerous activities than carrying or using guns, such as driving a car, or going to the doctor, both of which claim vastly more lives per year than firearms.

No, what we have as a society is a stigma that disarmament is somehow more morally appropriate than bearing arms. This is the first time in history in which a man's weapons were not only for personal protection, but were also a point of pride. From the sword of a samurai, to the rapier of a nobleman, to the revolver of the cattleman, a man's personal weapon has been a part of his legacy. Society today tells us that somehow this is uncouth behavior. Be it from the feminization of society or the unwillingness of modern adults to take personal responsibility for their actions, weapons in general, but firearms more specifically, have been villainized in the media. Defending yourself has become politically incorrect both on the moral and physical front. As a result, the natural inclination of our society is to become a collective of victims. Gone are the days of individualism and pride in one's ability to care for himself. Now we are a society that begs for handouts and sues at the drop of a hat.

Symptomatic of that deeper issue is the stigma about firearms. Again, it's not an issue of lethality or danger, as people partake in lethal or dangerous activities on a daily basis without a second thought. For whatever reason, whenever someone sees a gun in the hands of a soldier or cop, they feel safe, but in the hands of another citizen, they feel threatened. Somehow society has this idea that those classes of people are different. From personal experience, I can say authoritatively that we are not. The only difference between me as a cop and me as a private citizen is that once I was given a badge, I was officially employed by a government entity. The common argument is “cops are trained, citizens aren't.” Honestly, that argument is mostly just misleading. Cops do receive training on how to use their duty weapon. They also must prove their ability to shoot said weapon before being allowed to carry it on duty. This may come as a surprise to many, but so do concealed carry permit holders. In order to obtain a concealed carry permit, one must take a class on pertinent laws and regulations, as well as on function of a firearm. They must then demonstrate their ability to use their firearm. Then they go through background checks before being issued their permit. All in all, police qualification is only marginally more stringent when it comes to the weapons that are carried.

To step beyond just guns for a moment. As I said before, firearms are the current weapon stigma, but more often than not they are not the weapon of choice for criminals. Precisely because of the increased difficulty in procuring them illegally as well as the increased charges that will be made when they are caught. In fact, the most common weapon used in crimes are the criminal's bare hands. In reality, criminals will use anything and everything available to them to assault someone, from kitchen knives to potted plants, and even to a shopping bag, those are examples of weapons I have personally seen used to commit crimes. Similarly, in our jail, we routinely confiscate every day items such as bars of soap, socks, and toothbrushes which have been weaponized. The deranged do not discriminate by the intended purpose of an item, they will weaponize anything they can get their hands on.

Another common misconception is that a firearm is a complicated affair which takes training and mastery to use. While it takes training to achieve a level of proficiency, as with any task, a firearm isn't even as complicated or difficult to use as an automobile. This also accounts for why far more people die in car accidents than they do in firearm accidents. Guns don't just magically go off and kill people. As a matter of fact, in one day, 84,999,989 gun owning Americans don't kill anyone. The reason this is never reported is because it's not newsworthy. People going about their daily business not harming anyone and living out their lives peacefully will not give the media the viewership they need corporately to stay afloat. What makes the news is when a lone man with a weapon (remember, guns are the hot button) manages to take the lives of many innocents. If someone stops him prematurely (like in the Clackamas Town Center), then it's not nearly as “big news,” so coverages is dropped in favor of something that will catch people's attention for longer. But we as law enforcement don't stop paying attention. There isn't a cop in the country who would rather read a story about 26 dead including 18 children, so we pay attention to the less “big” stories. We go on calls where acts of violence have been committed. We respond when someone is in fear of their life. We see firsthand how the criminal element works, and we look for ways to stop them. As a result, we see what happens when the responsible stand up against the reckless. We see that, hey, in this attempted mass shooting, one man in the crowd with a CCW not only used his pistol to stop a man with a rifle from killing God only knows how many people, but he did it without even firing a shot.

Additionally, and I won't elaborate too extensively on how, criminals don't care if they can legally own guns or not. Point in case, the young man who killed those elementary students stole the weapons he used. They were not legally obtained. Gun control laws told him “no, you can't have these,” so he went out and procured them all on his own. The same gun control laws that said, “no, you can't take these into a school” were also ignored, along with the laws that said, “no, you can't slaughter 26 people like animals just because you feel like it.” These are not the actions of a responsible person. These are the actions of a monster.

In summation, though I could say far more on the subject:

-Guns are not “killing machines,” as is frequently insinuated. They're a piece of equipment.
-There's nothing “special” about a cop that makes us magically capable of handling a gun responsibly where any other citizen cannot. Cops make mistakes and other citizens do things right. We're only human, just like that CCW holder. If you're afraid he's going to randomly shoot you because you made him angry, there's no reason you shouldn't hold the same fear of a cop. It's an irrational fear, but you ought to at least be consistent.
-If you're afraid of that CCW holder using his gun on you, you should also be afraid of him using his shoe, car keys, pocket knife, or anything else in arm's length on you.
-No law will ever stop the lawless."

 

[yinepu]

I don't feel it's for me, or you, to decide what other people need. Personally, I own any number of things I probably don't really need.

ya know... this is kinda funny.. cause my sisters insisted that i don't NEED my chickens (and other poultry).. their excuse: there is perfectly good eggs and meat at the store.. and if they had their way NO ONE would own chickens except for the big factory farms!
besides they say that chickens are noisy. smelly and carry germs which make them a hazard to people's health... besides all of that, poultry can be dangerous (one of my sisters was tore up by a big ol rooster when she was - in her words - an "innocent little child"). Which ..by her way of thinking should make them against the law to own.

 

[DaphneNL]

I live in a country where it's very very hard to get a gun, and it makes me feel safe.
But I'm not going to explain myself, simply because I've experienced that people who are pro gun are not interested in discussions about it.
I visited the USA in 2009, and had some americans ask me for my honest opinion, so they could tell me that if I don't own a gun, I can't protect my family like I'm supposed to. Kinda rude.

 

[Q9]

I think you are confused. That bumper sticker is a pro gun bumper sticker not a gun control bumper sticker.

Can you please point to the time in our history in which religion lead us into kindness and non-violence? Or in world history for that matter?

Can you please point me to a time in our history when atheism led us into kindness and non-violence? Or in world history for that matter?
Can you please point me to a time in our history when anything led us into kindness and non-violence? Or in world history for that matter?

 

[TallChickMagnet]

"News Flash: The founding fathers were not psychics who could predict the future. They didn't think of everything.

The Constitution doesn't mention online identity theft. Does that mean we shouldn't protect ourselves from it? The genius of the framers of the Constitution is that they wrote a living document that was designed to be amended as we go." - Annabel

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I think many people think the second amendment is outdated. I dont agree but people will think what they think. What bugs me is the idea of writing laws that infringe on a right. That is the mob rule that we are supposed to be protected from. Now if the system was followed an an amendment was passed, I wont be happy but that would not be a mob rule constitutional violation.

The first machine gun was invented in 1718 an pirates were known to sack whole towns with ships full of cannon an men armed to the teeth well before that. I just dont see that the pro/anti gun thing has really changed from the late 1700s. What has changed is people willingness to give up there freedoms to let the government take care of them.