Since we obviously need to clearly define our positions in order to have a logical debate...What limits on ownership of weapons would you approve of? Many of you have joked that the 'Left' says you want Tanks and Atomic bombs, but where do you draw the limit?
For my part, I would limit gun ownership to two fire arms, with a maximum of six rounds each and universal registration requirements with background checks.
The 2nd Amendment was not intended to help citizens overthrow their government! At the time of its passage we had no standing army and this amendment was meant to allow us to be ready to form militias to defend ourselves from foreign attackers, not for revolution!
Read it:
"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."
As many as I want because you do not have the right or ability to regulate it. My rights are granted by God and are non negotiable! Why are you so eager to have government control over every aspect of your life? Molon Labe!
ReplyDeleteGUNS ARE STUPID PEOPLE ARE GOOD.
ReplyDeleteJust like a libtard to argue a fact with incoherent babble!
ReplyDeleteI said you were good.
Delete"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them which would include their own government." George Washington
ReplyDelete"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of firearms" Thomas Jefferson
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole of the people except for a few politicians" George Mason
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."
ReplyDeleteMeaning because a sovereign nation must have a standing army, the people must be equally armed to overthrow any central government that may become tyrannical in nature.
Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, Cambodia. 260 Million killed by their own government in the 20th Century.
ReplyDeleteColumbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Sandy Hook. Countless innocents murdered in killing fields known as "Gun Free Zones".
How many more have to die before you will wake up!
Interesting Stats:
ReplyDeleteFirearms prosecutions Peaked in 2004 under President George W. Bush at 11,014 while the Obama Administration only prosecuted 7,774 in 2012.
Of the 76,142 gun permits that were denied in 2011 only 4,732 were referred for prosecution. Only 62 prosecutions resulted.
Chicago, which saw 506 murders in 2011 only prosecuted 25 federal firearms cases.
Nope, we had no standing army at the time of the creation of the 2nd Amendment. And you still fail to offer any guidelines or limitations on ownership which gives you no credibility in this debate.
DeleteAll men were not treated equal at the time of the 2nd amendment either, but that did not mean that they should not be. The ones writing the document did not write it just for their time but for all time. They knew that slavery was wrong and wrote a document that could someday be used to abolish it.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be stuck on limitations and don't care about statistics and reality.
Limitations;
1 No highly lethal weapons should be owned by violent criminals.
2 The US should not sell or give weapons to nations that are unfriendly towards our nation or freedom of their people.
3 Weapons of mass destruction should be, as unobtainable as possible, and buyers should be criminally prosecuted.
4 Explosives should be regulated but not impossible to purchase as they are also tools.
5 Background checks are fine as long as there is no permanent record or registry, as registered weapons are easily confiscated.
6 I am also ok with the regulation of firearms that are capable of killing people all by themselves with no influence or guidance from people. When you find a truly evil gun that seeks out and gets people all on its own it should be destroyed, but in this case there would be no one to prosecute, so laws would be unnecessary.
When you form opinions on this issue by deciding for yourself what would be necessary for others you assume that you know all the possible scenarios when one would need to defend ones self and property, and you simply do not. You assume that, while other governments can over time become tyrannical ours can not. Your argument that the founding fathers only "gave" us that particular right because we had no standing army omits all of their writings that indicate they believed that an armed people or citizenry is a free people. You ignore the fact that citizens themselves, they armed themselves and overthrew their own tyrannical government a few years before they wrote that amendment.
As a side note, do you know that several state supreme courts as well as our national supreme court have numerous times declared that the police force is not obligated to protect people even when they know that violence is being committed against their citizens. It is our responsibility to protect ourselves. Would you really restrict how big a fire extinguisher people could own because they have a government sponsored fire department? Would you assume to know how big of a fire they would ever encounter? When an entire city riots or is hit by a natural disaster your 12 rounds will go fast and mobs and hungry people will not stop to let you reload or change you political positions.
I truly hope you will never experience any situation that would require more than 2 guns and 12 rounds but you should not try to restrict others ability to be prepared for such an event.
Foster
This an interesting and detailed response and I appreciate it, BUT...Everyone realizes that their must be some limitations to ownership, but no one on the pro-gun side seems willing to put anything on the table.
DeleteAnd I differ, that guns are easily confiscated. Just like drugs and guns owned by known criminals...nothing is easily confiscated.
No one on the Pro-gun side? Or no one you know about or care to listen to on the Pro-gun side? Do the laws already in effect count?
DeleteIn all the debating lately, I have yet to here anyone on the "pro-gun" side (Im going to call them the "Pro-Liberty" side) say everyone should own a tank or nuclear weapons should be easier to get a hold of. Very few have said that automatic weapons should be less regulated or that more people should own a 50 cal. There are laws already in effect that most of us have learned to live. The problem as I see it is, is there ever a point where it will be enough? Do the anti-gun people really want to save little children or is their end game to disarm us all. The currant administration has prosecuted weapon violations far less than the previous one and yet some how they get the credit for being against the criminal and my side is painted to be Gun Loving Nut-jobs.
What is being talked about is all just smoke, mirrors, and an illusion of trying to solve a problem. The anti-gun crowd should just be honest and say they don't think anyone but cops and their protective details should be aloud to be armed. Statistics show that hand guns are the most used firearm for murder so why not control them? There is no such thing as a assault weapon. An AR-15 is just a semi-automatic rifle that resembles the M-16. It is scary looking I suppose, but that might save lives as the criminal who meets one face to face might exit before the civilian behind it is actually scared enough to pull the trigger. Even when faced with the possibility of physical harm it is hard for the inexperienced civilian to pull a trigger on another human-being. The great thing about an AR-15 is that it is relatively light and has little kick so children, women and small men can use it with ease and it has a much longer effective range than a hand gun. It is also easy to take apart and clean. Rifles represent a small amount of the deaths per year but scary looking military like rifles and hand guns are the go to for most of the deranged spree killers probably because they like to see themselves as commando like heroes for their cause. Spree killings and mass murder are no new thing and the deadliest school killing was perpetrated long before the military had assault rifles or even automatic weapons.
\http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
Are mass shootings really a new problem that is getting worse?
http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2012/12/24/are-mass-shootings-really-random-events-a-look-at-the-us-numbers/
Would less guns in the hands of free law abiding people really cause more of these shootings?
Every mass shooting (as defined as a shooting with four or more fatalities) has taken place in a gun free zone with the exception of the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords which while not gun free was certainly gun unfriendly.
I got a little off point there, as to your second point, undocumented weapons are hard to confiscate from criminals but as shown in Canada, the UK, Australia, Hitlers controlled territories and many other examples across time, law abiding citizens whom already registered there weapons turn them in when asked, for fear of criminal charges. Your comparison to drugs is a good one. Have laws really stopped or even slowed the use of drugs or have the just empowered the criminal?