US Firearms and Todays Society

a reply to: carewemust

was held across the street from the George R. Brown Convention Center, with calls for stricter gun control laws as the nation grapples with the shooting at Robb Elementary School on Tuesday.

Youve stated on a few occasions now that you support "stricter gun control laws."

So whats the issue?

originally posted by: IAMALLYETALLIAM
a reply to: JinMI

The question goes well beyond access to guns in my opinion.

There’s something deep seeded in the American psyche and society that compels people to murder en masse. In no other western democratic country (and even others who don’t fit this bill fare better in this regard) do we see the same rate of mass murders and whatever the catalyst behind that is, is the issue that needs to be discussed and explored further and it’s not population rates that make America appear worse.

I struggle to reconcile these atrocities with the Americans I met in a month long holiday when I was over there 11 years ago. I found nearly everyone I interacted with to be decent people from whites, African Americans, Mexicans, Jews you name it...even a few gang members were nice enough.

Disclaimer: I am not anti-gun. I own two rifles and want to keep increasing that collection to include more calibres and types of firearms as I am interested primarily in hunting.

Yeah, it's the constant focus on children's feelings.

Young people today have no idea how to deal with life, let alone understanding how to let things go.

They are woefully unprepared. They go to violence a lot quicker than we did, and it's because they are not dealing with the negativity in their life in a healthy way, and this is what happens.

Coupled with the people who just wrap themselves up in the current culture of ME, ME, ME.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Well you don’t have to, but it was how we won our Independence from a tyrannical King.

About 250 years ago, against flintlock weapons etc.
Not much difference in the technology used by all the combatants.
An opponent that was fighting wars against other countries on other continents in an age when it took 2 months just to travel across the Atlantic Ocean.

Completely different scenario than if you had a tyrannical domestic government today with a compliant military and all the weaponry and resources available to it at its disposal.

So there's that.

a reply to: Freeborn

About 250 years ago, against flintlock weapons etc.
Not much difference in the technology used by all the combatants.
An opponent that was fighting wars against other countries on other continents in an age when it took 2 months just to travel across the Atlantic Ocean.

Completely different scenario than if you had a tyrannical domestic government today with a compliant military and all the weaponry and resources available to it at its disposal.

That's the point. If my government can own a ICBM, I should be able to as well. At least, according to the 2nd Amendment.

Kinda shows how out of step we are with the intent of the document.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Freeborn

By the letter, and the intent, of the Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment, we the governed are allowed the same weaponry, as those held by the govt.

...and, yes, by that train of thought, that would include any and all firearms that the standing Army possesses.

...and, no, that doesn't include helicopter gunships, and tanks, as those are not, by definition, firearms--they may, indeed, carry firearms, but are not themselves such.

Not that I'd say no to owning a helicopter gunship--that'd be kinda cool.

Is that applicable to most of us--obviously not, but that was the intent. Makes it hard for a govt. to go all authoritarian on you, if one can point out their mistake to them.

But that's not even near the top of my list of reasons for owning.

a reply to: seagull

Id nitpick abit with your phrasing.

Arms, not just firearms.

I would assume that to be anything an individual could own and operate individually. Im happy to see sources or debate that point.

a reply to: seagull

Actually, I believe a tank would fall under the definition of "arms": it is an armored, mobile, long-range gun. A helicopter gunship would not, as the helicopter can be used for transportation, but then again helicopters are not illegal to own. As long as one can legally own the firearms attached to a helicopter gunship, their rights have not been infringed.

Strictly interpreted, one must be allowed to build a private nuke in their backyard. Now, while I may have the capability and expertise to do so, I have zero intention of building a nuke for personal use... duh! I am also not very keen on my neighbor building one, even if the distance between us is measured in miles. I support the idea of a Constitutional amendment to address that, something along the lines of:

"The 2nd Amendment use of the word "arms" shall not be construed to protect an individual's right to possess the following:

• Any weapon which, by it's design, converts any element into another element by means of atomic fusion or fission.
  
• Any weapon which has the capability to accurately strike an intended target at a distance greater than 100 miles.
  
• Any weapon which, if directed at another country, has the inherent, intentional ability to inflict multiple casualties with a single firing.

All other weaponry is hereby declared to be legal to possess by the 2nd Amendment."

The catch is that, for my support, such an Amendment would have to be extremely precise in the weapons it addresses as unprotected. With the present political climate and the use of the term "assault rifle," I highly doubt any amendment could be offered that I could still support.

TheRedneck