Poll: 2nd Amendment bug you? Me too.

[Arcane Azmadi]

American gun lobbyists are looneys who act as if even the most lenient attempts at gun control are the same as the government trying to make every person in the country register for 24 hour surveillance. They act offended at the idea that, for example, maybe it's a good idea that somebody keeps track of who does and who doesn't actually own a lethal weapon. Even the most resonable suggestions get pounced on by screaming rednecks- "NO! YOU CAN'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY GUN! IT'S MINE! I HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO DO WHATEVER I WANT WITH IT, NO MATTER WHAT!" They are, in a word, complete and utter morons. They're also crazy. And who do we most of all NOT want to be lethally armed? Crazy people. The people who most strongly insist on being allowed to own a weapon are the ones who should least be allowed to do so.

Get this guys: YOU DO NOT NEED A GUN. I live in Australia. It is VERY hard to get a gun here. What does that mean? It means our shooting-related deaths, even when you take into account the difference in our population sizes, are a microscopic fraction of Americas. And none of us feel in any way like we're missing something for the lack of a gun. The evidence is completely indisputable, but the gun lobbyists hide behind nothing more than an outdated and irrelevant piece of legislation written hundreds of years ago which is totally meaningless in the modern age, to achieve absolutely NOTHING more than perpetuation of the endless cycle of needless deaths every year (or every DAY) in America. Your nation as a whole is so immature. You need to grow up and act your age.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I'm thinking range and fire rate here more than anything.

And clip size. Thank you for saying it for me.

No probs, I'm just fast like that.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Ok, even without considering the recent events in Tuscon (So hundreds/thousands can die each year from gun crimes but if its a politician then suddenly "holy shit, guns may be dangerous"?) I'm really tired of hearing anyone in the news or wherever talk up 2nd amendment rights.

Hate to tell you, but the 2nd amendment is RIDICULOUSLY OUTDATED.
It reads
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Lets run this down. Firstly, the second amendment was written when there was still a serious threat of Indian attack, British attack, and in general no exceedingly superior standing army in the U.S.. The National Guard was farmers and home owners with rifles and pistols. further more, it was written to ensure that if ever a oppressive regime took power, the American citizens could revolt much the same way we did against the british.
But hey guys, guess what?

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

Secondly, you don't need an automatic weapon. You are not fighting any insurgents. Cops, officers of the law, have those to stop all those gangs or criminals that got their hands on automatics who whoa! did illegal things with them. You do not need more then at most 1-2 guns. What the hell are you using them for if its for defense, unless your a collector, and even then, collecting tools of death is questionable. What I'm getting at is everyday someone who has a gun uses it for criminal purposes. Furthermore, having a gun or concealed weapon means the likelihood of you firing your gun and killing someone just soared into the realm of very possible, instead of not possible. Gun regulation should be intensified several folds before I can see it being reasonable to own weapons.

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, the groups of hardcore gun owners/advocates that hide behind the second amendment for their right to own a god damned AK-47 or something of another unnecessarily large scale need to have that shield taken away so law making can continue and reduce the levels of gun toting potential criminals and deaths.

Am I justified in this view escapists? Or is there something I don't get about laws regarding a tool meant to kill something or someone?

There are so many of these threads that I've put my opinion into already that I won't do so again, but I will explain one major point to you. If an armed population goes into revolt and has enough support, no modern military in the world can push them back. The difference between now and back when the American revolution first took place is a massive change in population. If even 1% of the US stood up in resistance, that is over 3 million armed citizens. With most of our military employed overseas in stations that are difficult to retract, the government would have no choice but to negotiate and reach common ground. Besides, we're tasked to capacity fighting against guerrillas in Afghanistan, and they don't have modern equipment to combat US air superiority.

 

[Tanis]

Also, OP, would you like some cameras in your house?
It's not like you're doing anything illegal, so why not?

The government is just trying to protect you...right?

 

[asinann]

The first thing that Hitler did when he came into power was take guns away from the people because guns give the common man a way to end government oppression when needed. If all the populace has are a bunch of hand guns and hunting rifles they aren't going to be able to stand up when it becomes necessary.

 

[Sandytimeman]

Without guns it would be really hard for the revolt to come. And believe me its really important to allow that to happen. I mean its the natural order of governments imo. The rise, Corruption, Revolt and Fall.

 

[matrix3509]

IF you are the kind of person who lets their governments run your life for you, then yes, gun control is fine. But for the rest of the populace who know that government doesn't really give a shit about their citizens, and whose only desire is to grab more power where they can get it, guns are a means of protecting the populace at large from retarded, corrupt (read:all) governments. Until you can understand this please stop starting threads on a topic that has been done to death, risen to undeath, and then beaten back down with a sledgehammer. Eventually you will realize that your government doesn't give a shit about your well-being, and I hope I'm there when that day comes.

You are not being cool or popular by raging against the U.S. for some perceived "barbarous ways" its already been done, move on to an original topic.

 

[HandsomeJack]

The Founders were incredibly smart, well-educated men. They spent a good deal of time reviewing states and governments of old before penning the layout for the USA's government. Time and time and time again the removal of arms was the first step in governments oppressing thier people. If you take away the ability to overthrow government, there is no regulation keeping government from acting in self interest at the expense of the citizen. This concept is not western exclusive (look at Japan's history) nor is it outdated (World War II Germany's rise of the National Socialist Party, Communist Party taking power in Soviet Union).
Freedom is hard won and easily lost. A nation can look as benevolent as it likes, but somewhere in it is an ambitious tyrant waiting for thier time to shine.
I hate to bring up the tired addage "Outlaw guns and only outlaws have guns" but after a friend of mine went to Ireland for a few years on a musical apprenticeship had one person she knew gunned down for looking at a person funny and another having to be relocated by police because he caught the eye of the gangs and the police didnt even have the ability to confront the gangs because they had weapons and the police didnt...well I became a true believe in that trite but true saying.

 

[outcesticide69]

Guns are meant to protect yourself from the government and others trying to harm you. If we banned guns, criminals would still get a hold of them, and even if they couldnt by some strange reason, they'd still kill even without a gun. Look at england, they banned guns and knife murders went way up after. Back in the late 80s, russia wanted to invade the US, and one of their reasons for backing off was because they found out almost every citizen owned a gun(it was admitted by their own general, btw.).

 

[CrazyMedic]

I think it could stand a bit of tightening down but I doubt the politicians could do it the right amount so I think it is fine the way it is, see if you had done it before just about everyone owned guns I would kinda agree but now if you get rid of all the guns it will basically just be criminals and besides I think with all the major society ending crap that could happen I would I think it is a good idea to keep a gun around encase someone launches up an emp. And even if we banned guns it would still be fairly easy for the people who you don't want with guns to get off the black market and besides if the government does ever need to be kicked off it's roost we will need guns.

In regards to the second half of that statement, if the U.S. government today suddenly was ridiculously oppressive, enough to warrant a revolution of some kind, sorry to tell you that U.S. citizens would be screwed. As the owners of the most powerful military in the world, average, untrained citizens armed with pistols, rifles, and maybe some semi or automatic weapons are not going to defeat the well trained, organized, supplied, well armed, and massive U.S. army. It would not happen. We would need bazookas, jets, tanks, the best automatic weaponry, and a lot of ammo. We reasonably can't give those to citizens. Why give them light weight guns that usually end up in the perpetration of crimes instead?

actually the us's track record when dealing with gorrila warfare is REALLY bad I mean Nam Korea and Iraq(granted it hasn't been resolved but we are struggling) now if we were to try to have a good ol' fashioned war we would be boned but if we were to fight a gorrila war it COULD work.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

Did you know the number of school shootings in America dwarf the combined total from the rest of the entire world?

I found it out while researching gun laws/satistics and stuff for an assignment a while ago.

Another interesting thing is despite the high prevalence of arms in countries (such as in the middle east), it did absolutely nothing to suppress tyrannical regimes from seizing control in these areas.

Either way, its not going to change America, they're too stuck in their gun-tottering ways.


edit:
I mean look, one of their arguments against banning guns is 'knife murders would just go up instead', acting as if its clearly better to have deadly at any range guns, as opposed to deadly only at physical contact range knives...

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

On the subject of the mentally ill individuals who committed these much publicized acts of violence. The fault was not the gun; the fault lay solely on the disturbed individuals who committed the act. You cannot stop crazy, angry people from doing what they will do before they actually do it. Unless you have big brother watching you twenty four hours a day, reading your private writings, listening to you in your home, you will never stop some things from happening.

Your entire reply was great, and I agree entirely, but this one last segment reminded me of a bit of wisdom, eerily enough from a blue-collar comic. To quote Larry The Cable Guy: "If you can blame crime on guns, then I can blame miss-spelled words on my #2 pencil." Any tool is useful if you know how to use it, and a mis-used wrench can sink a battleship full of sailors just as easily as a 22" shell.