Do you support the second amendment?

[bassmansteiny]

I hope it is ok to add a link to a YouTube podcast, I think it might be relevant to the discussion here. This link is from the podcast Louder with Crowder. What he says is pretty close to my view and it puts it into perspective, maybe, lol. Mods, if I am not allowed to post the link feel free to remove it

Ok doing something wrong can’t get link on here. Search YouTube for “Steven Crowder” podcast title is"CONSISTENT ARGUMENT: Pro-Gun and Pro-Life?
Here’s why…"

 

[Vonsalza]

To add to yoir response “Assault Wepon” is a media made up term .

It’s an industry term that I’ve seen for a long time, assuming you’re ok with swapping the word “weapon” out with “rifle”.

Assault rifles are generally near-mil-spec rifles with detachable mags with shorter barrels than a traditional rifle and shoots what is generically referred to as an “intermediate range” round. Like 5.56 or 7.62x39.
AR15s and AK clones fall in this category.

They differ from battle rifles in that those rifles shoot larger rounds like .308 or 7.62x54. These are not as common as they were in yesteryear due to the rise of the “evil black gun” and its cheaper ammo price.
AR10s and Springfield’s beautiful M1 fall in this category.

No. “assault weapon/rifle” isn’t made up by libbies at news desks. You’ll find the term used in industry when its not trying to be sensitive to the latest mass-shooting.

 

[phil19034]

I’m not American and I’m from a place with uber strict laws on guns so I don’t personally understand this issue as much as I wish to.

Guns in the US seem to have a correlation with a high rate of deaths from gun violence (not just mass shootings, but suicides and/or accidents) so it seems rather obvious to limit firearm access. I also don’t understand the reason of having it for self defense, maybe someone here could show me some stats that show how much violence was prevented or stopped from escalating because someone else had a gun. I actually would like to know because I haven’t heard from it from rather intelligent conservatives who have made compelling arguments before.

However…the US is a huuge country and I don’t think just limiting access or confiscating guns would make a huge difference. I do believe it’s more than just access to guns. Americans are aggressive and there’s obviously a mental health problem. That hardly gets attention because it’s difficult to combat it.

There are approx 300,000,000 people in the United States. That’s far more than almost every other nation. We are also a melting pot of multiple cultures, which don’t always place nice together. So that’s the root of the violence.

The main reason for gun defense is for rural Americans. There are a large number of Americans in rural areas who live 20+ miles away from the closest police department. They are effectively on their own to protect themselves from crime and wild animals. There are many Americans who have to be armed to protect their families from bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, etc. Against such animals, you want a gun like an AR-15.

Now, in the cities and suburban areas (where the police are close by), you don’t need an AR-15 to protect your home from crime, nor do you need it to protect yourself from wild animals.

However, unlike almost every other nation on Earth, America was founded by average people standing up and fighting the Army and winning. Because of the way our nation was founded, the founders believed strongly that all people had a right to take up arms against a tyrannically government.

When America first won our independence from England, the States set up a Confederacy. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no Federal Army, no Federal Executive Branch, no Federal Courts, just a legislature. During this time, the US was more like the UN or EU. The confederate legislature could not make states do anything.

The whole system was a mess. http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/artsofconfedproblems.html

(continued)

 

[phil19034]

(part 2)

But many people, who perfected the confederacy (like Thomas Jefferson) truly feared a centralized govt. In order scrap the Articles of Confederation and create a new federal government under the US Constitutions - the Bill of Rights were offered as a compromise to satisfy the States that feared a federal system. Twelve Amendments to the Constitution were suggested, ten passed (the first two did not). The 4th Amendment (now called the 2nd Amendment) satisfied the states that feared a centralized, federal govt; buy allowing the states and people feel conformable with the fact that they could always rebel against the govt if the president turned out to be another King George.

Remember, the States just fought a war so that they could have local rule, they were not eager to give up local rule to another capital outside their state.

No other nation really was founded that way. Yes, some were founded via revolutions, but the US was founded by 12 Providences (13 colonies) - who had little in common - working together to overthrow a common enemy. But they were NOT a united group. It was not 1 colony or 1 providence seeking independence.

When the Spanish colonies fought for independence, the new nations were not a combination of Spanish providence, but rather one or more nations per province.

So the US founding is actually very unique, and the use of guns are critical part of our founding.

NOTE: I do not own guns and do not like them. But I understand our founding and the reason for the right.

 

[Vonsalza]

There are many Americans who have to be armed to protect their families from bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, etc. Against such animals, you want a gun like an AR-15.

That’s the argument often forwarded. But it’s also worth soberly pointing out that in America today, you’ve got a better chance of being struck by a meteor than being attacked by a bear (excepting, probably, the 750K people that live in all of Alaska).

So if you take your bear-risks serious enough to buy an AR15, you should also invest in some sort of shoulder-mounted overhead armor to protect you from meteors.

Bees, deer, lightening and ladders are also greater threats to your continued survival.

Edit: Apologies. You don’t have a BETTER chance of being struck by a meteor as you do being killed by a bear. You have a SIMILAR chance. Mea culpa.

 

[Duesenberg]

No I’m dead serious. For gun worshipers heaven forbid we ban any weaponry at all. But people get all up in arms about a flag or kneeling during a song and neither of those have the capacity to mass murder.

“Gun control” does not work. It has been proven time and time again. We have mountains of it here in California, as do other states. It does nothing except restrict citizens’ rights.

 

[starshiptrooper]

That is because we do not have enough gun control everywhere.

Leftism: ideas so good that they have to be mandatory, universal, and involuntarily implemented.

 

[Vonsalza]

Sy_Noe:

No I’m dead serious. For gun worshipers heaven forbid we ban any weaponry at all. But people get all up in arms about a flag or kneeling during a song and neither of those have the capacity to mass murder.

“Gun control” does not work. It has been proven time and time again.

Australian and British gun-death stats refute you pretty unambiguously.

And again, not everyone here wants them banned - we just want them harder to buy.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Did their overall homicide rates go down though?

 

[Duesenberg]

It’s an industry term that I’ve seen for a long time, assuming you’re ok with swapping the word “weapon” out with “rifle”.

Assault rifles are generally near-mil-spec rifles with detachable mags with shorter barrels than a traditional rifle and shoots what is generically referred to as an “intermediate range” round. Like 5.56 or 7.62x39.

AR15s and AK clones fall in this category.

They differ from battle rifles in that those rifles shoot larger rounds like .308 or 7.62x54. These are not as common as they were in yesteryear due to the rise of the “evil black gun” and its cheaper ammo price.

AR10s and Springfield’s beautiful M1 fall in this category.

No. “assault weapon/rifle” isn’t made up by libbies at news desks. You’ll find the term used in industry when its not trying to be sensitive to the latest mass-shooting.

NO! You are wrong.

An “assault weapon” is by definition a select-fire machine gun. It’s not a semi-automatic rifle. The moniker comes from the German WWII StG 44 Sturmgewehr 44 (“assault rifle 44”.)

It’s disgusting to see this term misused (either through ignorance or deceit) in order to scare people.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

It’s an industry term that I’ve seen for a long time, assuming you’re ok with swapping the word “weapon” out with “rifle”.

Assault rifles are generally near-mil-spec rifles with detachable mags with shorter barrels than a traditional rifle and shoots what is generically referred to as an “intermediate range” round. Like 5.56 or 7.62x39.

AR15s and AK clones fall in this category.

They differ from battle rifles in that those rifles shoot larger rounds like .308 or 7.62x54. These are not as common as they were in yesteryear due to the rise of the “evil black gun” and its cheaper ammo price.

AR10s and Springfield’s beautiful M1 fall in this category.

No. “assault weapon/rifle” isn’t made up by libbies at news desks. You’ll find the term used in industry when its not trying to be sensitive to the latest mass-shooting.

NO! You are wrong.

An “assault weapon” is by definition a select-fire machine gun. It’s not a semi-automatic rifle. The moniker comes from the German WWII StG 44 Sturmgewehr 44 (“assault rifle 44”.)

It’s disgusting to see this term misused (either through ignorance or deceit) in order to scare people.

So then you agree, the origin of the word isn’t leftist media. The Krauts got it started.

I’ve seen industry use it since I caught the gun-bug in the 90s.

 

[Duesenberg]

Australian and British gun-death stats refute you pretty unambiguously.

And again, not everyone here wants them banned - we just want them harder to buy.

Nope. You’re mistaken.

 

[Duesenberg]

So then you agree, the origin of the word isn’t leftist media. The Krauts got it started.

I’ve seen industry use it since I caught the gun-bug in the 90s.

The media is misusing a term that did not come about as you suggest.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Australian and British gun-death stats refute you pretty unambiguously.

And again, not everyone here wants them banned - we just want them harder to buy.

Nope. You’re mistaken.

How murder and suicide figures plummeted in Australia after gun control laws were introduced

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

So then you agree, the origin of the word isn’t leftist media. The Krauts got it started.

I’ve seen industry use it since I caught the gun-bug in the 90s.

The media is misusing a term that did not come about as you suggest.

???

I never suggested how it came about. Just that leftist media didn’t create it.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

There are many Americans who have to be armed to protect their families from bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, etc. Against such animals, you want a gun like an AR-15.

That’s the argument often forwarded. But it’s also worth soberly pointing out that in America today, you’ve got a better chance of being struck by a meteor than being attacked by a bear (excepting, probably, the 750K people that live in all of Alaska).

So if you take your bear-risks serious enough to buy an AR15, you should also invest in some sort of shoulder-mounted overhead armor to protect you from meteors.

Bees, deer, lightening and ladders are also greater threats to your continued survival.

Edit: Apologies. You don’t have a BETTER chance of being struck by a meteor as you do being killed by a bear. You have a SIMILAR chance. Mea culpa.

Look, my brother lived in Fairbanks AK for a few years while in the Air Force. More than once, he had to remain indoors because a huge moose was outside their front door. He was also warned to never walk alone in the words near his home because of wolves.

It’s not like this was a long time ago… this was in the 21st century.

Some of my cousins live in the mountains in PA, and they need to sometimes protect themselves from black bears. It’s not often, but every couple years, a bear wonders into their yard.

Point is… whatever kind of gun control you do, you need to allow the people who need guns (regardless of how few) to get them.

As I have said before, I’m all for local referendums regarding local gun control. But I’m not in favor of national or statewide blanket laws that infringe on responsible use.

NOTE: I’m not saying we can’t find common sense laws, but the truth is that neither party is proposing many common sense laws. It’s all or nothing with both parties.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

phil19034:

There are many Americans who have to be armed to protect their families from bears, wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, etc. Against such animals, you want a gun like an AR-15.

That’s the argument often forwarded. But it’s also worth soberly pointing out that in America today, you’ve got a better chance of being struck by a meteor than being attacked by a bear (excepting, probably, the 750K people that live in all of Alaska).

So if you take your bear-risks serious enough to buy an AR15, you should also invest in some sort of shoulder-mounted overhead armor to protect you from meteors.

Bees, deer, lightening and ladders are also greater threats to your continued survival.

Edit: Apologies. You don’t have a BETTER chance of being struck by a meteor as you do being killed by a bear. You have a SIMILAR chance. Mea culpa.

Look, my brother lived in Fairbanks AK for a few years while in the Air Force. More than once, he had to remain indoors because a huge moose was outside their front door.

I think you see me specifically identify Alaskans as possible exceptions, right?

Some of my cousins live in the mountains in PA, and they need to sometimes protect themselves from black bears. It’s not often, but every couple years, a bear wonders into their yard.

I live in rural Kentucky. I know what a black bear look like. In my experience, if you leave them alone, 100% of the time they won’t try to force entry into your house and kill your family.

Point is… whatever kind of gun control you do, you need to allow the people who need guns (regardless of how few) to get them.

I totally agree.

 

[phil19034]

Duesenberg:

Sy_Noe:

No I’m dead serious. For gun worshipers heaven forbid we ban any weaponry at all. But people get all up in arms about a flag or kneeling during a song and neither of those have the capacity to mass murder.

“Gun control” does not work. It has been proven time and time again.

Australian and British gun-death stats refute you pretty unambiguously.

And again, not everyone here wants them banned - we just want them harder to buy.

doesn’t the British have far more stabbing deaths and deaths from blunt instruments than the United States?

To me murder is murder, regardless of the instrument used.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Duesenberg:

Sy_Noe:

No I’m dead serious. For gun worshipers heaven forbid we ban any weaponry at all. But people get all up in arms about a flag or kneeling during a song and neither of those have the capacity to mass murder.

“Gun control” does not work. It has been proven time and time again.

Australian and British gun-death stats refute you pretty unambiguously.

And again, not everyone here wants them banned - we just want them harder to buy.

doesn’t the British have far more stabbing deaths and deaths from blunt instruments than the United States?

To me murder is murder, regardless of the instrument used.

There may be more Brits that die from blunt or sharp objects, but it doesn’t offset the lives saved through their gun control efforts.

Our murder rate is 4.88 per 100k.

Theirs? 0.92

 

[Duesenberg]

How murder and suicide figures plummeted in Australia after gun control laws were introduced

My regrets but murder and assault is UP in Australia following the gun confiscation/ban.