windy95 wrote:

As well the law itself is clear. 10 U.S. Code § 311(a) reads: "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."


So anyone older than 45 gets their guns nicked? Nice.

My opinion? Being governed by a document written almost 300 years ago under the threat of foreign invasion, is just about as stupid as being governed by a 2000 year old book of religious fairy tales, when you flatly refuse to interpret what those books say in a modern context. Since no US politician can ever hope to attain office without frequently invoking the blessings of his favourite deity, the two actually go nicely hand in hand. Not that it makes any sense, but, there you have it.

In this day and age, however, evidence suggest the average member of gen.pop. is not suited to carrying anything more dangerous than a nail clipper.

B777LRF wrote:

My opinion? Being governed by a document written almost 300 years ago under the threat of foreign invasion, is just about as stupid as being governed by a 2000 year old book of religious fairy tales, when you flatly refuse to interpret what those books say in a modern context.

The key seems to be pick the bits that support my point verbatim but insist everything else needs modern interpretation.

Guns are really the fuel for entertainment industry (movies and video games) which generates billions in profits so like other vices (alcohol and drugs) it's not going away as long as there is incentive for profit. Not to mention that it also allows police and government to over arm themselves and grow their size .

I dont need a Cadillac Escalade but I like it I want it and thats what I bought. I dont need a semi automatic or full automatic, but if I like them then I should be able to buy them. I believe in a 50 state wide open carry, I dont believe in back ground checks of any kind. I didnt need one to buy my Cadillac. A car can be just as deadly weapon as a gun.
Beyond beliefs it is my leagal right to own a gun-

OK, so I left this thread for a week or so to see what responses came about, and clearly in parts it got pretty heated on both sides. The reason for my thread is for someone to explain to me how the universal ownership of a deadly weapon in the United States will make the United States safer. I am open minded, and I still do not understand that notion.

My opinion is clear from the link I posted in the original post, and can I please ask you to read it again, I'll link to my article here, and then post your feedback below. Because for the life of me I cannot understand why anyone can think an assault rifle or sniper rifle or semi/fully automatic weapons are necessary for members of the public to own for "Protection". I repeat, if you have an interest in them then fair enough! But it's almost as if the attitude is that you can't live without your gun! If you have an interest in them, then that's a reason to own a gun! No problem with that... But for protection...?

Anyway, my article is here: http://chucklescarter.blogspot.com/2017 ... -guns.html

Please leave me your feedback.

And this morning we wake up to the news of a shooting in a church in Texas, and President Trump tweets to say "May God be with them". (if you follow me on twitter @egteskygod then you'll have seen my response with colourful language to that... Surely the time has come to not sit and pray, or change a profile picture on social media, but for the US Government to seriously ask how and why these people are able to get hold of guns?!

EGTESkyGod wrote:

And this morning we wake up to the news of a shooting in a church in Texas, and President Trump tweets to say "May God be with them". (if you follow me on twitter @egteskygod then you'll have seen my response with colourful language to that... Surely the time has come to not sit and pray, or change a profile picture on social media, but for the US Government to seriously ask how and why these people are able to get hold of guns?!

I belive, that if mentally ill person wants to take somebody's life, he would definitly do it, with or without gun. Guns don't kill people, users do.
For an example in my country you can buy gunpowder gun without any restrictions, and I have never heard about armed robbery there. You think that semi-automatic gun would dramatically boost such statistics?

What a load of nonsense.

Without a high powered semi auto rifle firing military loads how could the Texas gun nut have killed 26 people?

Ok so you claim, that a problem is mainly rate of fire of accessible guns?

andrewmpll wrote:

Ok so you claim, that a problem is mainly rate of fire of accessible guns?

I did? Where did I make that claim?

IMO the gun laws issue is almost identical to the abortion issue. Just as some gun rights advocates feel any legislation denying them unlimited access to high powered assault weapons is the first step in stripping them of all of their guns, some people who are pro-choice (including then Illinois state Senator Obama) feel even legislation that recognizes a baby born alive from a botched abortion having the right to medical attention is the first step in outlawing abortion.

andrewmpll wrote:

Ok so you claim, that a problem is mainly rate of fire of accessible guns?

So what's your solution to this issue? Restriction of gun permissions, putting a ban on gun possesion, or complicated procedures to acquire guns?
Think about healthy man, who wants to use gun as a hobby, or protect his family against criminals/animals. One nut can effectivly cow society and therefore limit their chance to protect themselves.

andrewmpll wrote:

Think about healthy man, who wants to use gun as a hobby, or protect his family against criminals/animals. One nut can effectivly cow society and therefore limit their chance to protect themselves.

How so? Why do you believe that? In other countries without a 2nd amendment, private citizens own guns for the very purposes you mention. Why do you pretend/make up/fear that gun ownership rights will suddenly disappear in the USA if more thorough and effective laws and regulations are implemented? Gun ownership will still be OK, "the right to own" won't be ended.

And even the Heller decision ruled that the Second Amendment stated "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

Tugg

afcjets wrote:

IMO the gun laws issue is almost identical to the abortion issue. Just as some gun rights advocates feel any legislation denying them unlimited access to high powered assault weapons is the first step in stripping them of all of their guns, some people who are pro-choice (including then Illinois state Senator Obama) feel even legislation that recognizes a baby born alive from a botched abortion having the right to medical attention is the first step in outlawing abortion.

That is a pretty nonsensical statement you are making there, isn't it?

Well lets see here. Talk about banning bump stocks has mysteriously disappeared. And I bet you even money the now stalled bill on silencers will eventually pass

andrewmpll wrote:

Guns don't kill people, users do.

Yeah true, but I think the gun helps... Just standing there and shouting "BANG!" isn't going to kill too many people.

andrewmpll wrote:

o what's your solution to this issue? Restriction of gun permissions, putting a ban on gun possesion, or complicated procedures to acquire guns?
Think about healthy man, who wants to use gun as a hobby, or protect his family against criminals/animals. One nut can effectivly cow society and therefore limit their chance to protect themselves.

I don't think anyone has any problem with someone owning a gun provided it is appropriate to do so. In my opinion it is not appropriate for every single person to own a gun, because it is inevitable that there will be people among that group that shouldn't be anywhere near a gun. However by putting appropriate checks in place that the people who get guns are sensible enough, then surely that drastically reduce instances of, say, mentally ill people taking a gun into a church and taking 28 innocent lives before a supposed NRA member with a carry has time to react to it?

On the other side of the argument, if every single person should have a gun then why restrict it to Americans? When I visit the USA, why not give me a gun upon entry to be used only for "protection"?

Someone on a radio call in show today brought up a good point:

Why are government building safe spaces? The NRA and ammosexuals keep crying about how safe spaces at places like schools and churches do not work, so let's stop having safe spaces at government buildings.

Also, ever wonder why there are not mass grenade attacks in the United States? Because (say it with me): REGULATION.

AA747123 wrote:

I dont need a Cadillac Escalade but I like it I want it and thats what I bought. I dont need a semi automatic or full automatic, but if I like them then I should be able to buy them. I believe in a 50 state wide open carry, I dont believe in back ground checks of any kind. I didnt need one to buy my Cadillac. A car can be just as deadly weapon as a gun.
Beyond beliefs it is my leagal right to own a gun-

Cars provide useful service ( beyond being deadly tools ). Guns do not ( their purpose does not go beyond killing ).
( Hmm. public transport is more efficient than cars and less deadly. I'll go for forbidding cars too.
Ride the bus!

EGTESkyGod wrote:

andrewmpll wrote:

Guns don't kill people, users do.

Yeah true, but I think the gun helps... Just standing there and shouting "BANG!" isn't going to kill too many people.

andrewmpll wrote:

o what's your solution to this issue? Restriction of gun permissions, putting a ban on gun possesion, or complicated procedures to acquire guns?
Think about healthy man, who wants to use gun as a hobby, or protect his family against criminals/animals. One nut can effectivly cow society and therefore limit their chance to protect themselves.

I don't think anyone has any problem with someone owning a gun provided it is appropriate to do so. In my opinion it is not appropriate for every single person to own a gun, because it is inevitable that there will be people among that group that shouldn't be anywhere near a gun. However by putting appropriate checks in place that the people who get guns are sensible enough, then surely that drastically reduce instances of, say, mentally ill people taking a gun into a church and taking 28 innocent lives before a supposed NRA member with a carry has time to react to it?

On the other side of the argument, if every single person should have a gun then why restrict it to Americans? When I visit the USA, why not give me a gun upon entry to be used only for "protection"?

You are right that, regulation can help reducing instances of mentlly ill people with possesion of arms. I don't have a clue if it would works, becouse if some guy really wants to plan such slaughter, he would act like healthy man, just to get a gun. It would be backbreaking, but feasible. Take Anders Breivik as example - he had legally possessed gun.

But I have to agree, that according to statistics there is less crimes with weapon in Europe (with stricter law) than in US.