The 2nd Amendment

I don't see the point of the theoretical and imaginary questions that people on here (hint: Balbus) keep postulating.

It reminds me of the engineer, the physicist and the economist stranded on a deserted island with nothing except 500 cans of food, and no means to open them.

The engineer suggests crushing them under rocks.

The physicist suggests building a fire and heating them until they rupture.

The economist says "Let's pretend we have a can opener"......

It's like the utopian quasi-socialist society Balbus keeps hinting at, where we all love each other and no-one argues, or gets too drunk, or stoned, or has a mental illness, or is poor, or lazy, or ugly or lonely.

IT WON'T HAPPEN. As much as you can snork on about theoreticals and maybes, the world we live in won't change in a hurry, and then not much.

For the 45930267th time, taking guns away from the law abiding doesn't change crime rates. And don't fuck me off with the "natural born killers" nonsense. Frankly, that argument is offensive.

 

You want to criminalize sporting rifles. Next thing, you'll be coming after pistol grip shotguns and handguns. Once again, I've never killed anything and won't unless it/he/she is trying to kill me or other innocents. Leave my guns alone, all of them.

 

We, the people, should never allow our government to pass laws such as S. 150, which for all practical purposes would criminalize otherwise law abiding citizens. I believe there are laws currently on the books which bar convicted felons from purchasing or owning a gun of any type, and there are also laws which have consequences related to the use of a weapon in the commission of a crime. Owning or possessing a weapon should only become a prosecutable criminal act based on the usage to which that weapon is put. Would you fear a neighbor who owns an unregistered AK47 as much or more than someone else who breaks into your house armed with a legally registered 6 shot revolver or even a single shot .22 pistol?

 

And the Left wing politician would probably say, "Everyone is entitled to a can opener, we need to raise taxes and create an agency to ensure that a can opener is made available to everyone, and perhaps some increase in foreign aid to assure that those living in third world countries are not deprived.

 

Actually the grandfather clause in S. 150 makes previously law abiding citizens law breakers if their grandfathered guns are not registered.

Probably not unless it was received while committing a felony, and even then it would be related to the felony and not the traffic ticket.
Don't we have enough posts filled with BALoney and BUllShit?

 

Indie

I don’t fear harm from attack so much that I feel like I need a lethal weapon to protect myself from it.

There is an infinitely small possibility that London would suffer a catastrophic earthquake, it’s so small I haven’t even thought of being prepared for it.

Why have you encountered situations where a gun was needed to be put to use?

But many pro-gunners in the US seem to fear for their lives so much that they feel like they need a gun to protect themselves, if I was living in a warzone I might but I’m not living in a warzone so why do they?

But you don’t live there.

And once again we get ‘mugging, rapes, car jackings, etc. Fear and the promotion of fear.

Other social groups?

From my theory -

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

 

Deviate

Please read my theory and you will see that your outlook fit right in to it.

So basically the answer is yes - you would be one of those that would shoot, even possibly murder, innocent police officers that came to take you gun away?

 

Indie

To me the aggressive pro-gun stance (and the individualistic interpretation of the 2A) that is more often than not based on the guns for protection argument - is often just a symptom of wider attitudes and mentality.

These views do not seem to be about creating a better society where fear of harm is lessened but often seem to run counter to it.

I’m trying to point out that to get an understanding of how such people see the 2A you need to understand their wider thinking.

 

Where are the gun supporters rational arguments? There seems to be a lot of puerile comments, assertions, slogans and even the hint of threat, but the pro-gun argument seems devoid of rational or reasonable argument.

 

'But many pro-gunners in the US seem to fear for their lives so much that they feel like they need a gun to protect themselves.'

The argument I'm hearing here is they don't fear for their lives. This might not be true for others who own guns. You don't seem to be able to accept this.
They seem to see it as a necessary precaution to be prepared to defend ones self (and others) should the need arise. Precaution: Caution practiced in advance; forethought or circumspection. Why the need to attach 'fear' to precaution, caution, being prepared and the albeit somewhat flippant: Just in case?
They seem to think they are being perfectly reasonable.
I don't buy into the idea of trying to convince you and myself there is a need to own a gun. I think that isn't anybodies call but our own.

 

Such as?

 

Odon

Why the great need for precaution, why feel the need to be so prepared that they want to have a lethal weapon around to protect them from harm?

The forethought is of being harmed, beaten, raped, murdered, the distress that wishes to be avoided with their guns is being harmed, beaten, raped, murdered etc.

It seems to me to depend on what is being prepared for? They feel they need to have lethal weapons ‘just in case’ of being harmed, being badly beaten up, stabbed to death, raped, killed.

And so do you - because as you’ve said you are willing to accept the seemingly irrational. Which as I’ve said, is fine. But it does mean that you haven’t really got that much more to add to the discussion, you have basically bowed out.

 

There have been a few puerile comments but I’ll take on from just above

Puerile – Childishly, silly and trivial.

 

Balbus

It seems to me that most here want to own a gun and can. Giving reasons for it will inevitably lead to us scratching our heads wondering why. I'm not suggesting we totally understand why, but atleast accept other reasons such as preparation, caution and just in case - none of those need to or are defined by the word 'fear'. Fear seems to be the stumbling block here, and the need for you to attach and others to detach. If you are saying 'it must be because of' - and all the other connotations you have attached to it, is there any surprise nobody here wishes to do so, too, if they genuinely don't feel that way? It seems to me you think gun ownership is irrational, but accept people can own a gun. So what's the point in arguing why?

The only thing I have to add is reading both sides and asking why the need for continued debate. Like I said, it's a stale-mate.

 

Balbus

Perhaps that was puerile. I just see it as just wrong and partisan.

 

Odon

But why do they want to own a gun for protection? They seem to feel they need to have lethal weapons ‘just in case’ of being harmed, being badly beaten up, stabbed to death, raped, killed.

What is being prepared for? Why do they feel they need to be cautious? They seem to feel they need to have lethal weapons ‘just in case’ of being harmed, being badly beaten up, stabbed to death, raped, killed. Thing is if they didn’t fear those things why would they feel the need to have guns to protect themselves from them?

 

Bal, Have you anything rational to post?

Note that people, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.",espoused in the 2nd amendment is a right which pertains to each and every individual citizen whose actions have not given just cause to legally have that right revoked.

 

Balbus

You already asked those questions and I answered: none of those need to or are defined by the word 'fear'. Fear seems to be the stumbling block here, and the need for you to attach and others to detach. If you are saying 'it must be because of' - and all the other connotations you have attached to it, is there any surprise nobody here wishes to do so, too, if they genuinely don't feel that way?

Again, the need for you to attach the word 'fear'.

Stale-mate.

 

You ignored my question which asks if you and/or your family were to be facing a life threatening situation, would you still lack any fear?