All Hail the Second Amendment

[KUSA]

^^^^^^ Well said.

[Minimalist]

People want a magic bullet. The ONE answer that will solve the problem and real life does not work that way. Drinking is part of the problem. Mental illness is a part of the problem. The stress of modern living is part of the problem. Economics are part of the problem. And having too many high-powered guns laying around for those drunken/stressed-out/crazy/ and poor motherfuckers to pick up is part of the problem.

All of it needs to be addressed.

---

More "law-abiding and responsible gun owners"

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/02/ju...ng-lesson/

‘Just a case of stupidity’: Florida man shoots friend, self during shooting lesson

[bladevalant546]

See I do not buy any of this. You cannot realistically destroy all those guns, therefore regardless if they are illegal they WILL be attained either through black market or stealing. This is the thing, yes it makes it easier to massacre. However, wasting time on banning the guns is only letting the host of other issues get worse. I mean I hear people complain a lot, what I want is people to stop working their jobs and actually protest. However, people are too stupid and desperate to notice we can strive for a better life.

[Whateverist]

See I do not buy any of this. You cannot realistically destroy all those guns, therefore regardless if they are illegal they WILL be attained either through black market or stealing. This is the thing, yes it makes it easier to massacre. However, wasting time on banning the guns is only letting the host of other issues get worse. I mean I hear people complain a lot, what I want is people to stop working their jobs and actually protest. However, people are too stupid and desperate to notice we can strive for a better life.

For someone in favor of striving for a better life you sure seem intent on not getting started on this one.

[Minimalist]

You cannot realistically destroy all those guns

Again, that's a magic solution. You can stop making/selling new ones and start to reduce the ones currently in circulation.

You can also stop selling ammunition. A gun without bullets is reasonably useless.

Just because something is not attainable on day one does not mean you should not start at all.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
Lao-tzu

---

Another "responsible" gun owner shoots himself. Fortunately, no one else.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/03/id...ing-class/

Idaho State professor shoots his own foot with concealed weapon during class

I wonder if this technically counts as a "school shooting?"

[bladevalant546]

See I do not buy any of this. You cannot realistically destroy all those guns, therefore regardless if they are illegal they WILL be attained either through black market or stealing. This is the thing, yes it makes it easier to massacre. However, wasting time on banning the guns is only letting the host of other issues get worse. I mean I hear people complain a lot, what I want is people to stop working their jobs and actually protest. However, people are too stupid and desperate to notice we can strive for a better life.

For someone in favor of striving for a better life you sure seem intent on not getting started on this one.

Fair assertion, I just do not see the need to ban guns or any weapon. I live in a part of the US where having a gun generates security, Louisiana has the one of the highest gun crime rate and majority are guns with the serial numbers scratched off.

The point is the solution is psychological and societal. If you do not believe me, then explain states with similar gun ownership as Louisiana having basically one gun related death a year? Canada even has decent gun ownership and they do not suffer the same ills. The point is simple, I do not see the need nor waste of resources to take away or severely limit guns when the solution is better attain through science and sociology.

@Minimalist, so what about hunters? I think ammo restrictions would be a better compromise than out right banning.

So answer me this, how do you regulate the government then? An unarmed society is easily bullied you know. Not that really matters considering they have an air force and armor.

My starting point would be keep them out of psychos. For example, myself if my depression lead me to nearly commit suicide. I think my right to have a gun should be waive for a year or so until deemed fit for one. I can agree with that, and that is reasonable. Second, is to possibly have ammo restrictions to a certain extent even towards police. Then from there start actually treating people with mental health issues, and oh how about tackling the stresses that cause people to snap?

I am a reasonable person and I understand first hand (yes witnessed two gun crimes) that there needs to be something done. However, since I lived in cities where there were gun restrictions and ammo restrictions. Regulations alone will not work.

[The Grand Nudger]

An unarmed society is easily bullied you know. Not that really matters considering they have an air force and armor.

How'd that air force and armor work out in the middle east of late? It matters, lol. Honestly, I;d rather fight a godamned conventional soldier than a guerrilla. The worst is when professional soldiers use guerrilla tactics, pretty much a recipe for producing misery amongst your enemy. Constantly being ambushed, then chasing shadows until you're exhausted, only to give up....and then get hit again, tired, on the way back to your HQ. The quality of your gear and state of mind essentially circling the drain the more effective their operations are. An armed public is pretty much the ultimate deterrent against political tyranny. That's not to say that the armed populace always wins out, of course. Sometimes governments approach the insurgents with a sledgehammer, compliance at any cost.

All the fancy hardware helps you to -maintain- some measure of control...once you have it. It's not always helpful in the getting -of it-. Nor can it protect you against the cunning and ingenuity of human beings. A 22lr is a fantastic weapon if you find yourself fighting well armed soldiers on your home soil (if that home soil is the US of A). But, ultimately, you'd want something bigger to be able to go toe to toe in a limited way, or increase the destructive capability of your actions. Couldn't go too exotic, because the ammo needs to be readily available (and you can expect the other guy to attempt to control the supply). Ultimately, you might just bomb a cp and take the soldiers guns - but you're gonna need some guns one way or another.

I know, I know, some people say we don't need to worry about that anymore, but cops with tanks and ar's say otherwise. Some people also say that people are too soft to go revolutionary - and yet we see riots and looting. The field doesn't seem to have changed so much, in my estimation - as some would imply when they talk about how soft we are, or how hard our military gear is (and thus insurmountable either actually or effectively). Remember that time when the english crown thought that the american people weren't going to put up much of a fight, and that they lacked the gear necessary to do so (especially relative to their own) anyway? How'd that turn out?

Now, our ideas about military composition have changed alot. We don;t have "militias" defending their constituent areas anymore (in fact, thats frowned upon in a big point a gun at your face and say "FBI, lay down your weapon and get on your knees with your hands behind your head" sort of way). So maybe the types of firearms available to us should change - but the very moment someone tries to take away my hunting rifle it's going to start to look like a good idea to use it for something -other than- hunting deer. Yes, ofc, my hunting rifle -could be- used - to great effect- for combat, crime, weirdness. It's a nice rifle. So restricting my access to, say, a SAW doesn;t actually prevent me (or even inconvenience me) from committing crimes or murdering people. Hell, it probably wouldn't make too much of a difference in the overall body count either. In the case of a kid though, that situation is probably different. Give him a machine gun and 200 rounds and he might get a few more people on accident than he would on purpose with a bolt action rifle. However, in my case (and the case of many rednecks and ex soldiers) the hunting rifle is something that we could employ almost unilaterally. There'd be no way to control our access to the ammo (many of us can actually manufacture it) - and it can be effectively leveraged to a range that surpasses most machine guns with less material input and more mobility/concealment. The redneck (read: insurgent) in the brush (read: concealed with homefield advantage) leveraging a weapon system that is common and easy to obtain (read: untraceable and therefore uncontrollable),who is practiced in it's employment (read: comes from a gun culture) is pretty much the stuff of soldiers nightmares. A whole country full of them might make a soldier honestly reassess his career decisions.

[bladevalant546]

An unarmed society is easily bullied you know. Not that really matters considering they have an air force and armor.

How'd that air force and armor work out in the middle east of late? It matters, lol. Honestly, I;d rather fight a godamned conventional soldier than a guerrilla. The worst is when professional soldiers use guerrilla tactics, pretty much a recipe for producing misery amongst your enemy. Constantly being ambushed, then chasing shadows until you're exhausted, only to give up....and then get hit again, tired, on the way back to your HQ. The quality of your gear and state of mind essentially circling the drain the more effective their operations are. An armed public is pretty much the ultimate deterrent against political tyranny. That's not to say that the armed populace always wins out, of course. Sometimes governments approach the insurgents with a sledgehammer, compliance at any cost.

It is always a trade off, but the fact of the matter is the only reason why the US has not befallen to tyrants is the armed public and the intense distrust of government. This is not to say we can have a society with out armed citizens, however we are not perfect and still need armed citizens. An Ideal society is one who can have weapons and not want to kill each other. I mean we already are having issues with Cops, imagine how they will act knowing citizens ARE NOT armed at all.

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly as they already act? They know that the majority of the folks they harass don't actually possess firearms (the demographics of ownership place them firmly outside of the usual ao of police) - and that those who do are unlikely to shoot -at them- in particular. If they have the slightest doubt that they do not possess the advantage, they go and get bigger toys (favorites being the sort of shit that is already unavailable to the general public- largely due to the machinations of the system of which they are the jackbooted end).

[Cato]

@Minimalist, so what about hunters? I think ammo restrictions would be a better compromise than out right banning.

Fuck 'em. If hunters were half the sportsman they claim to be they would limit their arsenal to a bone knife and wardrobe to a loin cloth.