O
Orogeny
Guest
I don’t own a gun, but isn’t the worst case scenario exactly why most people would want a gun?
Peace
Tim
- Status
Peace
Tim
F
fix
Guest
Yes, that is exactly the way it works. What is a good scenario when one is attacked by force?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, but it takes more work and know-how to build a knife than it takes to simply pull a trigger.
Even at home we have more chemicals at home which can be much more deadly. Ask any kid who’s ever had a chemistry set. But it takes a little more intelligence to injure someone with them and so the use of chemicals isn’t that widespread.
Guns are usually the most convenient weapon to use if harming someone is the intention, especially from a distance, and it doesn’t take much intelligence in order to use one. That’s what makes them so appealing or fearing.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Didn’t address any of the suggestions I put up???
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Gun rights advocates are painting the repeated picture that guns are being called to be banned and that’s not the case. It does however give them another opportunity not to address controls that might help in addition to more armed guards, or concealed carry permits.
I think to continue that trend only affirms those seeking a ban over controls.
B
Bill1940
Guest
Dear Prodigal Son 1: As I understand your comment about the Founders, you don’t think it would have occurred to them that the people would need to be protected from the Founders themselves. I believe they wrote our Constitution with that uppermost in mind, knowing that we will not be governed by angels but by fallen man. The government is like fire. It is our friend and potentialy our great enemy. It must be controlled, limited, and carefully watched. It must not be allowed into places it does not belong. History is replete with the record of government out of bounds. Christians thrown to the lions, a million Armenians slaughtered, six million Jews exterminated, twenty million Russians, thirty million Chinese, and various others to a number of about one hundred million murdered to impose or maintain Communism, all by government. My life has been long enough to see much of this as current events and to form within me a lively distrust of government. We must watch it like a fire that is ever hungry for more fuel. It is the nature of fire and government to enlarge, invade and potentially destroy.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Yea, if we’re not careful, the government might take over.
Remember the 60s, the government changed positions and the people only protested. There were not raging battles that took place.
G
Glomung
Guest
Gun rights advocates are painting the repeated picture that guns are being called to be banned and that’s not the case.
I don’t think you’ve been paying attention, if you would note the ramifications of Senator Feistein’s proposed laws they will effectively outlaw all common rifles and pistols as well as criminalizing almost all ownership.
If you make the paperwork required to do something insurmountable you have effectively banned that something, regardless of how friendly the language of the law appears.
I don’t think you’ve been paying attention, if you would note the ramifications of Senator Feistein’s proposed laws they will effectively outlaw all common rifles and pistols as well as criminalizing almost all ownership.
If you make the paperwork required to do something insurmountable you have effectively banned that something, regardless of how friendly the language of the law appears.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
At the heart of this matter is a mindset of personal identity and responsibility. One group subscribes to the philosophy that we are responsible for ourselves and have the desire, capability and willingness to be responsible for ourselves , family and friends. They understand the risks associated with this philosophy and overall would rather have freedom and risk than not.
The other philosophy is we are incapable of, or fearful of personal responsibility and safety and therefore willing, if not demanding, to give up freedom in order to have someone else provide, care for and protect them.
They are diametrically opposed, and as such each group cannot fathom the others’ position. Hence the seeming merry - go - round of talking points. Those who want to take care of themselves can’t understand and resent those who don’t want them have the ability to do so. Those who want to be taken care of can’t understand the possibility of being sufficient enough to not only survive, but thrive without outside intervention.
Here’s my idea, let’s keep the freedom and teach the those who can’t do for themselves how to.
PAX
The other philosophy is we are incapable of, or fearful of personal responsibility and safety and therefore willing, if not demanding, to give up freedom in order to have someone else provide, care for and protect them.
They are diametrically opposed, and as such each group cannot fathom the others’ position. Hence the seeming merry - go - round of talking points. Those who want to take care of themselves can’t understand and resent those who don’t want them have the ability to do so. Those who want to be taken care of can’t understand the possibility of being sufficient enough to not only survive, but thrive without outside intervention.
Here’s my idea, let’s keep the freedom and teach the those who can’t do for themselves how to.
PAX
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
I can get with that statement. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
The local, state, and federal governments all depend on armed people to enforce their laws and throw people in jails and prisons.
Although… the Brits seem not to have armed police officers as the norm for patrolling their streets and enforcing their laws. I’m not sure how well that would work in the United States or say… Mexico. I wouldn’t even want to be an armed cop in Mexico with those cartels.
Governments like Mexico’s need armed men to protect both the government and citizens from violent NGO’s like the cartels.
T
TimeEntrance
Guest
I think there is a lot of truth in that.
I remember reading a book on the Comanche Amerindians. The way many white settlers and the Amerindians lived came with a lot more freedoms than we have today. The cost of that level of freedom meant you had to be responsible for your own security. There was no phone to pick up to call the police. Even if injured in an accident or by a wild animal there were no ambulances to rapidly come to your rescue and aid. The benefits of all this is that you didn’t have the police patrolling all around you like you’re living a police state. You could walk around drinking alcohol out of a bottle with not a cop in sight to bother you. You could smoke marijuana walking around openly if you wanted to.
But in other ways we have more freedoms today. We are free of the burden of protecting ourselves from “neo-Indians” or horse-riding gangs due to rapid forms of communication and rapid responses of police. We are free from having to provide for are own medical care and free of the burden of possible starvation. The cost to this is that we have to turn over some authority over our lives to institutions outside of ourselves.
To me many Europeans are more willing - and more demanding - their governments protect them domestically. Maybe some of that Libertarian spirit in the American still inclines him or her to keep a six-shooter nearby?
P
PeaceInChrist
Guest
Police in the US have no legal obligation to protect us, and their response time is far greater than the time taken to commit a violent crime. They are reactionary.
Another interesting point: the majority of firearms-related deaths in the US are suicides. Accidents are also lumped into the total number of deaths often touted by anti-gun organizations. More people are killed by vehicles. More people die from cigarette-related illnesses.
If firearms are restricted, I would also like restrictions placed on the amount of tobacco purchased per month and length of the cigarette. I would like driving tests to become far more stringent, require renewal at least every year, and licenses be revoked either upon a moving violation or collision of any kind. Failure to report collisions, even with objects, should be a felony. Speed restrictions should be set on vehicles that would help prevent vehicles from moving fast enough to kill another driver (we’ll test 35 mph and adjust accordingly). If someone owns a vehicle, and it is within 20 miles of their person, or if they will be in a privately owned vehicle, alcohol should not be sold to an individual. Sensors on the vehicle and the individual’s drivers license will help determine this.
I think these steps will reduce tobacco deaths, vehicle deaths, and drunk.driving. They might require some restrictive legislation, but they will likely work. I’m actually semi-serious about this stuff. If we’re trying to make people safer, and direct control is an option, then I wouldn’t be opposed to at least some of this stuff.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Just ran across this quote from JFK.
JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take
arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of
their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that
freedom.”
“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the
right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the
essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the
fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever
be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important
declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be
ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second
Amendment will always be important.”
“Know Your Lawmakers”, Guns Magazine, April 1960, Page 4
JOHN F. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take
arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of
their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that
freedom.”
“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia,’ the ‘security’ of the nation, and the
right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms,’ our founding fathers recognized the
essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the
fears of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever
be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important
declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be
ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second
Amendment will always be important.”
“Know Your Lawmakers”, Guns Magazine, April 1960, Page 4
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
It was a time that the draft was activated, and I also see irony in using that statement, being he was assassinated.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Guns may be a simple and convenient way to kill, but even if you took guns out of the equation, people would resort to other means. Look at Timothy McVeigh. He killed 168 people and didn’t even use a gun.
No matter what you do and no matter how much you try to prevent it, some people and going to kill other people; it’s human nature. Sad, but true nonetheless. People have been killing other people since Cain killed Abel and he didn’t have a gun either. Rocks, clubs, spears, swords and crossbows were used to kill long before guns ever came into existence. Someday firearms may be replaced laser pistols or lightsabers. The problem is not the technology; the problem is how that technology is used.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Read the second sentence of my reply to you.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
And when background checks are required and a convicted felon attempts to purchase a gun, it’s supposed to prevent the sale.
L
Lost_Sheep
Guest
Doesn’t matter. If he can’t buy one he’ll steal one or purchase it privately from someone else. He is going to get one one way or the other.
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
Not sure what having the draft activated has to do with it.
The point about the assassination though does bring to light what several of us have been speaking about. The rifle used to assassinate him was a bolt action rifle with a 6 shot magazine. Which holds to the point that it is not the weapon used, it is the evil in a person’s heart.
Once the “reasonable restrictions” fail to prevent the next guy with a hunting rifle from committing an evil act, the next “reasonable restriction” will be to outlaw whatever weapon they used. Which brings us to the natural conclusion that the only way to stop it all would be a totalitarian society.
Let me ask you then, other than taking away hi capacity magazines, what is your solution to stop people from committing evil?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Draft, militia, see any connection at all?
How many children would have died in Connecticut if the shooter had been limited to a bolt action gun, with 6 shots? Lee Harvey Oswald was trained by the Marines. I’d guess a great number of gun rights activists never served. That’s not to say they can’t train themselves to shoot proficiently. They could.
Where are the suggestions of things to help, or modifications of suggestions made? All I see are the ‘government bad’ arguments. Where’s the mass exodus to get away from this seriously evil government? Why do we have such a high immigration number? America, with all her faults, is still one of the best places in the world to live. People have lost their national pride, for me, me, me. Alone, no one is anything. Together we stand, divided we fall.
There is no one suggestion fits all solution. I’ve made several suggestions, but it’s always the same, and sometimes silly arguments. Gun safes? How can I defend myself when my gun’s locked up? Stricter registrations on private sales? They’ll steal them! I’ve seen arguments that large magazines are a right, and useful for ‘flipping rocks.’ The reality seems to be, some people don’t care what happened, and don’t want to be inconvenienced in anyway. Others seem to idolize their guns. Think about it, the arguments are ‘guns can give me life.’ There’s only One that can give us everlasting life.
Christianity has been working on the evil heart solution for generation, after generation. Look where we are now. It’s getting worse and worse. Of course that has been stated throughout mankind’s history. Logistically, it would be easier to control guns than such a massive population, if we want to make any difference at all. With that said, neither can be left out. All is a part of the solution, and it won’t be 100%.
.
- Status