Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I went from page 6 to here so I'll just put in my own two cents. I believe that the second amendment was written from the perspective of the Revolution. Government can change, EVEN a democracy, it can turn on a dime given the right conditions. I think that an outright ban on guns is a VERY BAD IDEA. I have never personally owned a gun, but, I have lived with guns in my home; know how to shoot them, clean them, etc... I have considered getting one. If things went really bad, guns in the right hands (mine) would be a great benefit (to me).
Living in Miami (with our large Cuban-born population) I can ask a simple question. Can you own a gun in Cuba? Cubans look at me like I'm crazy (even 12 year olds, get this). No! Of course not. Guess why?
I understand people like to go hunting but you don't need pistols for that.
You do if you want to hunt during pistol season, and who are you to determine if someone needs a pistol for hunting? Maybe someone has an infirmary that prevents them from using a rifle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gsm113
Perhaps you would need a pistol to defend against a home invasion, but if you outlaw guns that becomes less of an issue.
How would outlawing guns make needing them less of an issue? Are 100 lb women somehow going to be more able to handle 250lb men because guns are outlawed? They aren't called "equalizers" for nothing.
Have you heard the saying "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"? It's not just a trite saying, it's the truth. Guns will NEVER be completely removed from society.
It seems like the main reasons to have gun rights don't exist any more.
And I don't buy the argument that we need guns to protect us from a tyranical government. The government is a group representing the interests of the nation at large. The government and the people are one and the same so if they get tyranical they get voted out.
What an adorable idealistic point of view. In the real world the government represents the interests of the voters who put them in power. More and more today that means completely ignoring the interests/needs/wants of the 48% of the people who didn't vote for them.
You do if you want to hunt during pistol season, and who are you to determine if someone needs a pistol for hunting? Maybe someone has an infirmary that prevents them from using a rifle.
I used to hunt wild boar in California with my Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag. revolver. I carry the same weapon today, with special "hot" loads, as backup against bear. My camp gun is a Mossberg Model 500 12-gauge pump shotgun with a rifled barrel and an extended tube magazine loaded with Brenneke .65 caliber sabot slugs. But it is damn difficult to fish while carrying a shotgun, which is why I wear my .44.
Originally, our nation's people were not only the nation's defense force, but we also needed guns for hunting and self-defense. 3rdly, our forefather's wanted us to have this right so as to keep our government honest. The 2nd amendment is our civil defense against a government should it turn tyrannical.
In Libya almost everybody has arms. Still, that has not kept people from being oppressed by a dictator for two reasons: 1) the government has much more powerful weapons, and 2) people themselves are split into two or more fronts.
I realize the second amendment guarantees our right to own a gun.
I am neither pro- or against-gun control. However this weekend I received an advertisement with the newspaper from a local sporting goods store. The multi-page magazine style ad focused on guns and many of the items made me ask the question "why would someone need this?"
The one that sticks out the most was a gattling gun replica which can shoot some crazy number of rounds per minute.
I understand people like to go hunting but you don't need pistols for that. Perhaps you would need a pistol to defend against a home invasion, but if you outlaw guns that becomes less of an issue.
I guess the main question is why do we need to have the right to own a gun?
For one, I like to eat venison. I also like quail and pheasant. If you can shoot them yourself, that's a good thing.
Having said that, our founding fathers seemed to think that a well-armed populace wouldn't let tyranny take over.
In Libya almost everybody has arms. Still, that has not kept people from being oppressed by a dictator for two reasons: 1) the government has much more powerful weapons, and 2) people themselves are split into two or more fronts.
In the US it would be exactly the same.
Not quite the same. While I agree that if something similar were to happen in the US the nation would be split, but there are a great deal more armed Americans than Libyans. Additionally, our own military would also be split. Unlike the Libyan military, the US military swears an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, not the individual in power.
Our 1.4 million-man military would be quickly overwhelmed if even a fraction of the 200+ million armed Americans were to rise against the government. Do not forget that there are millions more military veterans who are now armed law-abiding civilians than military veterans currently on Active Duty or in Reserve.
Not quite the same. While I agree that if something similar were to happen in the US the nation would be split, but there are a great deal more armed Americans than Libyans. Additionally, our own military would also be split. Unlike the Libyan military, the US military swears an oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, not the individual in power.
Our 1.4 million-man military would be quickly overwhelmed if even a fraction of the 200+ million armed Americans were to rise against the government. Do not forget that there are millions more military veterans who are now armed law-abiding civilians than military veterans currently on Active Duty or in Reserve.
I assume it is the same with Libya. Their army's official duty is also to protect the constitution, country etc., not Gaddafi.
I just think that it is way easier to say in hindsight this or that guy was clearly an oppressor or dictator. So everybody asks why for instance the Iraqis didn't get rid of Saddam or the Germans of Hitler. But to the people who live at the same time as the dictator those things are often not as clear. They kind of grow into it without realizing what is going on.
And who is to decide whether guy x is a dictator or not. Even today there are millions of Americans who think Obama is the Anti-Christ, Hitler's reincarnation etc., while others are happy with his work or expect even more of the same things those millions mentioned before consider dictatorial or oppressive.
What an adorable idealistic point of view. In the real world the government represents the interests of the voters who put them in power. More and more today that means completely ignoring the interests/needs/wants of the 48% of the people who didn't vote for them.
Actually, in the real world the government represents itself, and the interests of the common man be d*mned. If you have money, then you have influence, otherwise forget it.
I assume it is the same with Libya. Their army's official duty is also to protect the constitution, country etc., not Gaddafi.
I just think that it is way easier to say in hindsight this or that guy was clearly an oppressor or dictator. So everybody asks why for instance the Iraqis didn't get rid of Saddam or the Germans of Hitler. But to the people who live at the same time as the dictator those things are often not as clear. They kind of grow into it without realizing what is going on.
And who is to decide whether guy x is a dictator or not. Even today there are millions of Americans who think Obama is the Anti-Christ, Hitler's reincarnation etc., while others are happy with his work or expect even more of the same things those millions mentioned before consider dictatorial or oppressive.
I agree that in some cases (obviously not in the case of a Coup d'Etat) despots and dictators do not spring up overnight. They gradually assume powers they were never granted. Much like Obama attacking Libya without prior approval from Congress. Or Obama's unconstitutional oil moratoriums. When you have a sympathetic media and a constitutionally ignorant populace, it is much easier for despots and dictators to assume control.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
