The 2nd Amendment

I heard about that at work today. Still not breathing easy, but for now, I drink to victory :cheers2:

 

Who's victory was it?

 

Freedom..

 

:beatnik:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQiorUI3W4w"]Da Lench Mob - Freedom Got An A.K - YouTube

 

Nor should you breathe easy, while a battle has been won it is not the same as winning the war.

Both I and a number of my friends who still live in the U.S. own some weapons which fit the governments definition of an assault weapon, but neither I nor my friends have ever put any of those weapons to use in an offensive manner. To do so, is and should be unlawful, and prosecutable under the law.

We had the 18th amendment, prohibition which was passed Constitutionally, and later repealed by the 21st amendment, and have Federal laws making some 'recreational' drugs illegal without use of Constitutional amendment, which many people claim does not eliminate or even reduce the usage of the drugs made illegal to use or possess, but does criminalize and allow many otherwise law abiding citizens to be prosecuted and incarcerated.

While such government actions may serve to allay the fears of those who support such bans, they seldom if ever have any desired effect on the criminal element within the society, and usually have a more profound effect in criminalizing otherwise honest and law abiding citizens, while providing greater economic benefit, and increasing the numbers of the criminal element.

While Balbus and possibly a few others may imply 'fear' to be a cause behind the desire to own a gun, at the same time it could and more likely should be implied that 'fear' is being promoted as a cause to gain support to ban and/or register guns.

The Democrat party, and even a few in the Republican party (RINO's) will continue to keep this subject contained in their agenda, so it's not over, and recognize as fact that often change occurs very slowly at first making it unrecognizable, except to those who have lived long enough to recognize where we came from and where we are today.

 

Very very good point. My mother is a self professed 'liberal' who extols a lot of the same things as balbus (though less ridiculous).. She's a historian living in Canada and the last time she was here we got into a huge argument after Sandy Hook. She started calling me and basically all Americans gun crazy, etc. Saying she doesn't want to live in a society where people are legally carrying guns, completely deflecting my point of view which is that makes it safer since law abiding permit holders aren't likely to start shooting innocents.

I know for a fact she's fired an AK off a boat, but I challenged her to come shooting with me because I said I think she's afraid of guns. She got all defensive saying stuff like "oh you think that?! FINE I'll shoot your fucking guns ok?!"

From that point she kept advocating disarmament and saying things about our way of life here, so I told her to stay in Canada.

Edit: In summary, every one of her arguments against guns or carrying concealed guns was based on fear against some maniac shooting her or other people. There was no rational basis to her arguments, it was a conversation involving heightened emotions almost to the point of hysteria. She knows that banning guns won't do a damn thing to address our sociological issues but in my mind was picturing some ideal utopia (like the members here) that is free of guns and violence.

 

People legally carrying, or for that matter people illegally carrying (unregistered) guns don't bother me at all, but someone who puts a gun, or for that matter a knife or any other implement to use illegally, in a threatening manner would be cause for concern and just cause to display or possibly even fire a gun if it is available.

 

If States want to pass pro or anti gun laws, acceptable to their voting age citizens, which some appear to be doing although I don't know for a fact that it is being done with the consent being asked of, or being given, by their voting age citizens, freedom remains exercisable by moving to or from a State based on ones agreement or disagreement with the laws of the State.

Note that Colt, et al, and their employees will continue to make a decent living, but will also continue to pay taxes providing the governments, local, State, and Federal with some revenue they need to continue redistribution, reducing the debt accumulation of borrowing for the same purpose.

 

Indie

Still have no clue what the hell you were on about when you said – “So it's those damned 1st amendment rights you're arguing about” – and you clearly don’t seem able to explain?

 

Indie

Guns are not recreational drugs.

Now I’m a great advocate of the decriminalisation of certain drugs and to treat the issue as a health problem rather than as a law and order issue

That would mean regulation often tight regulation and as I imply it wouldn’t mean all drugs would be decriminalised, it would be a matter of risk assessment, and what is best for individuals and society.

The same principle applied to guns would be that there would be regulation even tight regulation and there would be restrictions on the type of weapons that could be held. It would be a matter of what is best for individuals and the wider society.

 

Indie

Oh no not this again?

OK to repeat something for the umpteenth time.

The thing is that I’ve got nothing against the law abiding and responsible owning a gun, but that doesn’t mean I’m against gun control measures because the flip side of that view is that I’m against the criminal minded and irresponsible gaining access to firearms of any kind.

Now I’ve often asked do pro-gunners want guns out of the hands of criminals and the most common answer I got is – yes, but that is impossible – the second bit turning the yes effectively into a no – meaning they do want guns in the hands of criminals.

The ‘impossible’ argument is the idea that there is no alternative; nothing can be done to get guns out of the hands of the criminally minded.

But many things could be done to limit criminal access to guns, it is just that many pro-gunners object to them, limiting the access of guns to criminals is not impossible it is just seems to me that many pro-gunners want to make it look like it is impossible.

The problem to me is that because of the attitudes and mentality that often seems to be associated with the desire for gun ownership there is a tendency among some pro-gunners to be against virtually any kind of gun control. That is why I don’t think they’re serious when they claim to want to get guns out of the hands of criminals.

 

Deviate

This from someone who’s implied he’d shoot at, even kill police officers? (and has not denied it when asked)

But as pointed out many people with a pro-gun stance would support ideas that would likely make societal problems worse.

It seems to me that often the two things go together.

 

Someone, anyone, please help Balbus understand.

 

Bal,

Are you attempting to imply that gun controls would take guns out of the hands of criminals?

Curious, but would you feel less safe among a crowd where everyone was carrying a gun?

 

Indie

I’d wish someone would because you clearly can’t and that’s very strange because you said it.

That seems to imply you utter nonsense that even you can’t understand

 

Indie

Has no criminal ever had their gun taken off them due to it being illegal for them to have it?

If no never - then gun control measures, such as laws against criminals having guns don’t work – if yes then they do.

*

I believe California’s Department of Justice has seized over 2,000 illegally held guns from those disqualified from owning them.

*

I mean if someone has committed a crime especially a violent crime wouldn’t it be good to take their guns away? What about people with serious mental disorders?

 

The Gun Control Act of 1968 - prohibits certain people from possessing a firearm. The possession of any firearm by one of these "prohibited persons" is a felony offense. It is also a felony for any person, including a registered Federal Firearms Licensee to sell or otherwise transfer any firearm to a person knowing or having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person receiving the firearm is prohibited from firearm possession. There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:

• Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
• Fugitives from justice;
• Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
• Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been committed to a mental institution;
• Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
• Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
• Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
• Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
• Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

With limited exceptions, persons under eighteen years of age are prohibited from possessing handguns.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/blnoguns.htm

 

Bal,

So what then are you arguing about?

 

Indie

Sorry mate, but are you loosing it or something – what are you on about now?