Do you support the second amendment?

[pnewton]

I have no problem listening to new ideas, but gun control is an old, failed idea. And basic rights are not up for compromise.

You call our homicide rate a success?

I have to disagree that owning a gun is a basic right. It is a Constitutional right as currently interpreted by pretty much all but the strictest of constitutionalists, an irony I get a kick out of every time I think about it.

 

[pnewton]

The choices are too narrow. One can believe in both one and two.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You call our homicide rate a success?

That’s because of gun control. Areas with high gun control have more homicides.

I have to disagree that owning a gun is a basic right. It is a Constitutional right as currently interpreted by pretty much all but the strictest of constitutionalists, an irony I get a kick out of every time I think about it.

Self-defense is a basic right along the lines of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness AND in the Catholic Church.

 

[SuperLuigi]

“A civilization cannot be conquered from without until it has been conquered from within”

 

[Joe_5859]

I have no problem listening to new ideas, but gun control is an old, failed idea. And basic rights are not up for compromise.

One of the things I think we need to avoid is viewing “gun control” as a monolithic thing. I can imagine all sorts of different types of regulations on guns—some of which would be reasonable, some of which would be impractical. I think each potential regulation needs to be looked at and evaluated separately. Some may work, and some may not.

Otherwise, it becomes and all or nothing proposition. I don’t think that’s necessary nor helpful.

 

[phil19034]

SuperLuigi:

I have no problem listening to new ideas, but gun control is an old, failed idea. And basic rights are not up for compromise.

One of the things I think we need to avoid is viewing “gun control” as a monolithic thing. I can imagine all sorts of different types of regulations on guns—some of which would be reasonable, some of which would be impractical. I think each potential regulation needs to be looked at and evaluated separately. Some may work, and some may not.

Otherwise, it becomes and all or nothing proposition. I don’t think that’s necessary nor helpful.

I can agree with that. However, that’s not what either party proposes. There might be individual Democrats who favor a logical approach, but as a whole, the party does not.

I strongly believe this is because most liberals live relatively close to their local police station and where there is relatively pretty quick police response.

However, there are large parts of rural America where people are 20+ miles from their “local” police station. Where they are on their own against wildlife, crime, etc.

When my brother was stationed in Fairbanks, AK - he bought a GLOCK to protect him from wildlife. I once asked him if he ever goes on walks in the woods and his response was “no way, there are wolves in those woods!” And a few times, the Air Force confined them to their barracks because there was a huge moose outside their front door!

Urban and suburban people do not understand the need for guns in rural America, just like rural America doesn’t have to worry about living in neighborhoods with gun violence.

 

[Thom18]

I support it. You don’t take away rights from people because someone commits a terrible act.

 

[Vonsalza]

The question above all questions: Is freedom now too dangerous for our society?

With the escalation of technology, we do need to stop from time to time to evaluate what everyone should have access too. Makes me think of the Fermi paradox…

The Aussies have but limitations in place that limit the ownership of these sorts of weapons. Has tyranny broken out in Australia, in your opinion? Are they an oppressed people living in a police state straight-out of Orwell? Of course not.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Their right to self defense has been stripped, their freedom of expression is muzzled by “hate speech” laws and they pay more income taxes especially at the highest levels. They are definitely less free than I am. In light of the mass 3rd world immigration coming to the West, that is one country I would rather not live in.

 

[Thom18]

The Aussies have but limitations in place that limit the ownership of these sorts of weapons. Has tyranny broken out in Australia, in your opinion? Are they an oppressed people living in a police state straight-out of Orwell? Of course not.

Alternatively, is America a war zone because of the second amendment?

 

[starshiptrooper]

No, the community where I grew up probably had more guns than people. We never had a murder however and only 2 attempts at robbery that I can remember in the 20 odd years I lived there.

 

[phil19034]

po18guy:

The question above all questions: Is freedom now too dangerous for our society?

With the escalation of technology, we do need to stop from time to time to evaluate what everyone should have access too. Makes me think of the Fermi paradox…

The Aussies have but limitations in place that limit the ownership of these sorts of weapons. Has tyranny broken out in Australia, in your opinion? Are they an oppressed people living in a police state straight-out of Orwell? Of course not.

Not today, but who knows what can happen in 20 or 200 years. When you take away rights, you don’t just take them away from your generation, you take them away for future generations to come.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Thankyou for taking the time to post this. Phil.

 

[AlNg]

You are absolutely right that once guns are taken away, criminals just find other means.

No. Making it more difficult for criminals to obtain guns is going to help reduce violence against innocent people. It may not eliminate it completely all at once, but as more and more guns are confiscated and outlawed, it will become more difficult to obtain these horrible weapons used to kill innocent people.

 

[phil19034]

Four suicide bombers. And shootings. Three co ordinated teams did all that. Not one man with automatic weapons from one place.
( although there are now claims more then one shooter in Las Vegas)’

See the difference?

But do you see the similarity? When evil people want to kill innocent people, they are going to find a way to do it. What difference does it make if they use a gun or a bomb? The murdered people are dead.

Let’s get to the real root of the problem. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Their right to self defense has been stripped, their freedom of expression is muzzled by “hate speech” laws and they pay more income taxes especially at the highest levels. They are definitely less free than I am. In light of the mass 3rd world immigration coming to the West, that is one country I would rather not live in.

Is that about Australia?

 

[starshiptrooper]

Yes, it is about Australia.

 

[JonNC]

And forget about a militia defeating the US government unless individuals are going to avail themselves with tanks and nuclear weapons and all the weaponry the US military has at its disposal.

The Viet Cong effectively defeated the Soth Vietnam army.
The minutemen defeated the greatest military for of their time.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

But do you see the similarity? When evil people want to kill innocent people, they are going to find a way to do it. What difference does it make if they use a gun or a bomb? The murdered people are dead.

Let’s get to the real root of the problem. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

I see the magnitude of injury and death by one person had immense potential to be reduced, A gun is manufactured for one purpose, killing. It’s made to kill. But where it’s function is limited, yes , people will find other means. Our conversation here in Australia has been about damage control. Limiting the damage able to be done. This also includes bans and permits on martial arts weapons, certain knives, chemicals activity. Etc.

Someone has to hold the gun, bomb, knife, nuke, and decide to pull the trigger. It’s a human choice. In Johannesburg, crime is high. Car jacking , home invasion etc. The cultural rule of thumb 15 years ago, that residents grew up with, was , if someone invades your home and haven’t shot you within the first few minutes, they are not going to.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

I am Australian, how do you see our freedom as being less then yours? Our freedom of expression muzzled? As compared to yours.

As far as immigration, we have much tougher laws than most of the rest of the world, both on legal and illegal immigration.

Income tax law really isn’t part of this conversation.