Why More Americans Want to Own Guns

[Brian37]

Brian, the First Amendment doesn't only apply to technology of the era.

If it did, you'd have to accept government censorship of writing done on a typewriter or computer. You'd have to accept government restricting assemblies of people to those who would arrive on foot or by horse.

Applying that standard to only guns is applying a double standard.

What the fuck? The First Amendment also adapts to changing times, what double standard are you talking about?

They didn't have TV stations back then which was media, and even our radio tower technology has changed since then and so have the regulations to disseminate information. The regulations for the first microwave radio and TV towers back then could not handle our modern satellite and cell tower technology? Or do you think information magically moves with no human help?

By your logic, kiddy porn should be legal on the net because we had no internet at the founding of the country.

The First Amendment most certainly does change with changing technology. 

Regulations always change with changing times, you stupidly think any at all is a call for an outright ban. 

Freedom of religion is legal, but denying a baby medical care for religious reasons isn't. Making movies depicting fires in them is legal, but shouting fire in a theater when there is none, is not.

They way we move information has changed, not freedom of speech, just like the 2nd Amendment isn't an outright ban but even that has the word "regulated" in it. And times have changed since the founders.

No double standard at all.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Brian, your logic was that muskets were acceptable, but that semi-auto rifles shouldn't be, right, because they didn't exist then, right?

Edit: I think I imputed someone else's logic to you. My apologies.

I stand by my point that our rights are restricted to the technology extant at the time the BoR was written.

Edit #2: You clearly think I was arguing that rights are technologically restricted. I don't think they are, as I had thought I made clear.

[Brian37]

Brian, your logic was that muskets were acceptable, but that semi-auto rifles shouldn't be, right, because they didn't exist then, right?

Edit: I think I imputed someone else's logic to you. My apologies.

I stand by my point that our rights are restricted to the technology extant at the time the BoR was written.

No they are not. If they were we would not have any changing technology. We'd be stuck with newspapers and muskets.

Speech needs a medium to move through, newspapers were all they had back then, and the sound of their voices. Muskets were all they had back then, but they technolog has changed since then in the ways we use both our voices and guns.

You sound like Mitt Romney in the debate over military spending when Obama responded, "We also have fewer horses".

The Bill Of Rights is a law, and laws are regulations and all regulations have to adjust with changing technology.

Just like when the first cars were built many roads were nothing but dirt, and many had no speed limits, but as road paving improved and car speeds got faster, we started institutionalizing speed limits. And while travel is still legal, you cant today ride a horse and buggy on the 495 DC beltway. Nor could you drive a military tank on it either. Neither of those regulations make travel illegal, much less anti car.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm on my phone. That was supposed to read, "our rights are NOT restricted to the technology extant at the time the BoR was written."

This is why I shouldn't discuss substance through such a limited medium.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm not a knee-jerk liberal, but then I'm hardly the right wing.

I will vote for Sanders if he gets on the November ballot.

I have many good reasons not to trust the government, but I will never advocate dealing with such issues by slashing it to the core - if you need a big dog, then you need a big dog, just keep it on a tight leash while you're out walking it!

There is a need for a society which permits people to monopolize markets and make billions of dollars for themselves to take care of all said society's people, or stop pretending to be a society at all. This necessitates the socialization of medical care, and as much education as is necessary to make future generations competitive for success (not the hopeless enslavement of poverty wages).

I will always stand against the privatization of services which should be performed only by government employees, having seen too much for myself what comes of crooked government administrators pretending to get anything done well at all when they can show millions of dollars in savings which have to be spent to do it all over again much too soon because it's never done right when you consistently hire the lowest bidder!

Therefore, despite having grown up on a "gentleman's farm", I ain't no fucking libertarian either!

So why do I think it's a bad idea to ban guns in the US? Maybe it's because I grew up shooting guns in a geographic area where you weren't considered bad for that, knowing that not all people who like to shoot guns are violent freaks (target shooting is an actual sport unto itself for some), but after watching the video below, it reminded me of what New Hampshire is like. Compared to neighboring Vermont, it's a bit more rugged and cold, which may be one reason why it could never really be competitive for tourism. Much of it borders the most urbanized part of MA, and NH fears the spread of its drug culture and the threat which that brings to their comparably isolated homes. It's a sparsely populated State in a cold and rugged part of the US, therefore hard to effectively patrol, not pretty.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100...title-area


American violence has been blamed mostly on easy access to guns in the wrong hands, and while this is a point hard to argue, the argument that taking guns from law-abiding citizens will make them more safe is weak at best.

Yes, I know such policies work well enough in Britain and Europe, but the geography of the US isn't Britain, nor Europe. For one, there's a high population density throughout most of Britain and Europe. Where the real estate isn't hot, there tends to be low tree cover too.

West of the Alps, Europe doesn't really have much in rugged mountainous regions either. Mountains tend to be gentle rolling hills by comparison, and bald of cover. Also, there are parts of Europe which do not ban guns, in fact they are required in each household in Switzerland, where the real mountains are.

Of course there is also the Scots Highlands, and all of Britain prohibits guns, but another factor hasn't been weighed for America: Britain doesn't have an enormous span in square miles, so where road and foot patrolling may be difficult, there isn't as much for air patrol vehicles to cover. Which is an enormous problem in the vast mountain ranges of the US, where more of the people live who want their guns.

To be fair, there is also the cultural isolation in the US, which vast square mileage has permitted. MA residents may call their NH neighbors gun-loving idiots, but the NH residents are terrified of getting too close to the druggies of MA who they don't understand. In much of Europe, more citizens want to arm themselves because they are afraid of incoming Muslim refugees. Honest to fuck, I don't know how it happened that Englanders, who live in close proximity to all that and then some ever willingly gave up their own weapons. Or maybe they never did so willingly, never had legal access to guns, or don't remember the last time there ever was such a choice. If you became the witness to a crime by a London thug who then comes after you and follows you home, then what do you do?

Nope. The answer is 'penis size'.

Boru

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Wrong. Just Igorantly Wrong!

Guns have multiple purposes, including as collectors items,  Rifles are handy for hunting and target practice. Pistols are good for stopping an attacker as quickly as you may need it for, at close range, and target practice. Repeating assault rifles may not be needed by most American citizens, although the further decline of our civilization may change that. Some people just enjoy their collector's hobby, and there's nothing wrong with that if they don't have ammo for it too. All of the above do come down to one thing which is shooting, but so it is no less with cars. Muscle cars are a bad breed of cars, which exist specifically to endanger and cause fear to millions of other Americans on our highways. Therefore, the argument stands.

Older guns as collectors items? Awesome in my book, especially because I'm a history buff. Those guns sit on a shelf. Doesn't negate my argument though, since those guns were once manufactured as weapons for the purpose of shooting. When they're bought and sold now they are meant to sit there and be appreciated...because using them like you'd use a modern gun would be a bad idea in most cases. As for the rest of your argument...you're literally supporting what I said. "Hunting" (shooting animals), "target practice" (shooting things), "stopping an attacker" (shooting people). Nothing that you've said negates my argument that guns are first and foremost deadly weapons. I never used this as a way of saying guns are bad and we should ban them. I used it to show that you can't compare things that are made to be weapons to things that are not made to be weapons.

And so? Target shooting is a great sport, so is biathlon. Also if you live in the country there is lots of practical reasons to own a gun, namely getting pests off your land and because it can take a really long time for highway patrol to get to your house. The key here isn't jumping to either extreme. If you wonna deal the gun problem itself, then you need common ground, none of this shrieking from the right or left. Also you need to deal with the gun lobby and money in politics.

Again, I was arguing against comparing guns to cars. Nothing more.

Again, you are wrong! Guns actually put food on some people's tables, and that means sustenance for many Americans of whom you've made it plain you have not considered. Muscle cars do none of that which a vehicle of more civil temperament cannot do just as well. Therefore, if you you are going to go about confiscating peoples' target pistols or hunting rifles which you decide are "unnecessary weapons", then you have to confiscate all the muscle cars first.

Your reasoning has never been anything other than shallow, and your tone always disrespectful around here, so I could really give a fuck what you think. Being the asshole that you are, you came in here and made the blunt argument that "guns are for shooting", with the obvious implication that they are made for killing people. You clearly don't know jack about what gun owners do with their guns. You've only made it clear that you've never considered whether a '22 would be useful for hunting game birds, why a shotgun is actually a practical option for this, nor the interest in target shooting, for which handguns offer much greater challenge. You never touched a gun in your life, did you? You can take your ignorant, arrogant attitude and go fuck yourself with it!

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Therefore, if you you are going to go about confiscating peoples' target pistols or hunting rifles which you decide are "unnecessary weapons", then you have to confiscate all the muscle cars first.

Ok.  Confiscate the muscle cars, then confiscate the guns.  I don't see the problem.  (well, I do see a problem, but it's a logical one, not a practical one...)

Boru

addendum: And I still maintain that the correct answer is 'penis size' - the bigger the gun (or the ardor attached to it), the smaller the willy.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Therefore, if you you are going to go about confiscating peoples' target pistols or hunting rifles which you decide are "unnecessary weapons", then you have to confiscate all the muscle cars first.

Ok.  Confiscate the muscle cars, then confiscate the guns.  I don't see the problem.  (well, I do see a problem, but it's a logical one, not a practical one...)

Boru

Yo, Buru!

If your're going to challenge my argument, you can at least present a decent counter-argument - just throwing shit is for pre-pubescent children and people like EP.
The point is that muscle cars serve only the unique requirements of those who have no regard for safe, civil use of public highways, and they generally enjoy endangering and terrorizing those who they should be sharing our roads with as equals. This. makes. that. type. of. vehicle. a. weapon. on. public. highways. Therefore, at very least they should not be legally registered for highway use.

How many people who own assault rifles (many which are non-repeating, but those who make our laws took no time to learn anything about guns before they wiped their dicks on the dotted line) actually carry them loaded on public highways, or loaded in any public places? I doubt those who do obey our laws anyway, and there are other reasons why they should not be at large.

Therefore, I do see a problem, but it's a practical one, not a logical one - fixed it for you.

However, the practical problem of confiscating weapons is no less a practical one, and liable to stir up more violence and death than it's worth. It simply isn't worth triggering our next civil war over.

addendum:  And I still maintain that the correct answer is 'penis size' - the bigger the gun (or the ardor attached to it), the smaller the willy.

Can't disagree with you there in the case of urban gun owners, but not every American lives in your world, and that does not make them either anti-social nor violent. However, this equation holds true with muscle car drivers everywhere on this earth.

[brewer]

If any of you owners are feeling extremely guilty about continuing to own let me know and I'll get you the name and address of a dealer you can mail them to me at. I'll give them a good and safe home.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I don't care if you kill yourself in your muscle car, but I'll probably sit up and take notice if I find it in my back seat, or in my living room. So why aren't the liberals trying to ban muscle cars?

Phase them out yes, not an outright ban. It is possible to make a sports car not run on gas. Just like you can still have an antique typewriter on your shelf for decoration, but nobody uses them in mass nor should they.

Laws as far as guns should not be stuck in an antiquated past when the 2nd Amendment was written when they only had muskets. Firearm technology has changed since. But yet the gun worshiping right, just like the selfish oil industry cant understand that profit isn't enough "Just because I can"..... Doesn't mean you cling to the past. You don't have to go away, but things cant remain the way they are.

Just like climate change is killing our planet, our gun fetish is allowing too many gun deaths. And still stupidly these paranoid fucks think everyone is out to get them, when all we are saying is the status quo isn't working.

My argument had nothing to do with fuel consumption, that issue is tangential to the fact that muscle cars (which have improved their fuel economy by 100% since the 1960's) are still the same dangerous level of performance which menaces slower vehicles on our streets and highways, and is completely unnecessary for any purpose than thrills at the expense of other people's safety. Making them all hybrid or straight-up electric power would make no difference with this problem. Therefore they should not be allowed on public roads, but you can still have them for use on private roads - I'm not really in favor of confiscating anything.

Having a gun fetish doesn't make people evil nor dangerous, it simply makes them human. People just love their powerful toys, and if they want to set up objects in a private field so they can have fun destroying them with their AK-47s, then I don't see a problem with that. If that's a problem with the neighbors in rural areas where most homes have guns in them, then maybe they should be limited to less powerful weapons, unless they the firing pin is removed.