foosballnick wrote:Gunsnewing.....Excellent angle that I never considered before. Regular Gun owner "inspection" would certainly be a game changer and could prevent many crimes. Wpuld also add that one of the inspections needs to be psychological evaluation. The obstacle to this is the NRA lobby. They don't want anything related to guns touched in any way. The problem is ownership was made a constitutional right at the time when people needed guns to protect themselves during war time with the British Army and to hunt for food. That constitutional right does not transfer so well into today's society with millions of people living in close proximity, weapons of mass destruction and supermarkets.

They were not only used for game hunting and against the British... or the French up north and Spanish down south. But I believe the real "enemy" well-regulated militias were to defend against were the American Indians tribes and nations the colonists displaced and were warring against until the early 20th century. It's in this context the amendment makes the most sense. The idea was a standing army was a dangerous forerunner to tyranny, certainly when coupled with an unarmed citizenry, and this nation would instead be able to activate "well-regulated" militias to defend against Indian "raids".

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Vmart wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:

smackeddog wrote:

AnubisADL wrote:Might as well ban sharp objects too.

Even better, terminate people with mental illness in gas chambers.

People have been killing each other before guns existed. Banning guns isnt going to change anything.

You wouldn't have the number of casualties if the perpetrator was armed with a sharp object. Seriously, why do people need guns?

Guns are an equalizer. You got psychos out there.

I got finger printer and background checked when I got my carry concealed license.

What if your gun falls into the wrong hands or for that matter you wake up on the wrong side of the bed. Guns need to be banned there is absolutely no reason for civilians to have guns.

Wow. Bend over and kiss your butt goodbye! When the only ones carrying the guns are police and military, what are your chances to survive a totalitarian state?

ZERO.

That is the end game here. Be Warned.

Civilians with semi-automatic pistols versus a paramilitary organization like the NYPD or hell, the Coast Guard, let alone the US Marines: I don't like those odds either, even if armed with a massive amount of cilivian-available firepower.

We are talking about the largest military in the world by far versus self-organized civilian forces who, at best, may consist of the best elk hunters or paintball weekend warriors in their county. If we were serious about making sure the federal or state governments in this country couldn't get so big as to not be checked by civilian militias, the Cold War buildup distracted us, and that ship has sailed. Talk about bringing a knife to a gun fight: we are talking about bringing a pistol to a rocket fight. Not to mention incredible intelligence gathering, infiltration, surveillance and propaganda advantages the government would have over its citizenry.

We are also the world's largest arms exporter. Follow the money.

loweyecue wrote:

NYKMentality wrote:
You will never be able to eliminate guns in America. When an evil killer want's a gun? They'll get a gun. You don't take away the freedom of a man looking to protect his family due to evil people using guns.

Freedom of a man is enhanced by making it easy for every ******* and douchebag out there to be armed to the teeth?

Exactly how many homes have ever been protected against violent crimes by using guns on premises? Is there any data that backs up this claim??

For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”

Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.

Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure." - NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, NYTimes

skeng wrote:Also, I still can't see how the Second Amendment is relevant to modern society anno 2012. But I guess that's part of your culture.

I don't think it's as simple as assuming our country would've turned out the same in the absence of gun laws. I know the more social democracies look down at that notion but I think that's crazy... maybe if the civilians in your neck of the woods had been able to arm themselves world War II would have ended a lot sooner and needed less US intervention. Maybe the conflict in Syria would be over by now too

as our single greatest statesman put it, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Ben Franklin

DrAlphaeus wrote:

foosballnick wrote:Gunsnewing.....Excellent angle that I never considered before. Regular Gun owner "inspection" would certainly be a game changer and could prevent many crimes. Wpuld also add that one of the inspections needs to be psychological evaluation. The obstacle to this is the NRA lobby. They don't want anything related to guns touched in any way. The problem is ownership was made a constitutional right at the time when people needed guns to protect themselves during war time with the British Army and to hunt for food. That constitutional right does not transfer so well into today's society with millions of people living in close proximity, weapons of mass destruction and supermarkets.

They were not only used for game hunting and against the British... or the French up north and Spanish down south. But I believe the real "enemy" well-regulated militias were to defend against were the American Indians tribes and nations the colonists displaced and were warring against until the early 20th century. It's in this context the amendment makes the most sense. The idea was a standing army was a dangerous forerunner to tyranny, certainly when coupled with an unarmed citizenry, and this nation would instead be able to activate "well-regulated" militias to defend against Indian "raids".

^thank you. I made the same point about the reasoning behind the right to bear arms. Because we no longer live in a wild wild west bucktown, the need is no longer there. Also, the presence of POLICE. Back in the day law enforcement officials (ie sheriffs) were few and far between. People lived in areas removed from local settlements (log cabins, etc) and often had no protection against Indians and rogue cowboy posses.

This was before columbine and the other mass shootings that have become all too common but it was scary/upsetting for an entire school of young people.

For those that want to stand behind the second amendment I ask you - if you or your children were sitting in a classroom unarmed and a psychopath came in and started blowing you and your classmates away, would you still feel it was justified for him to have a weapon?

Sure guns don't kill people, people kill people. But a gun is a weapon designed for one purpose - to make killing easy. In 2012 we do not need them. Society needs to choose to move beyond violence.

fishmike wrote:you cant ban guns, but you can ban types and that would have an effect on the culture and level of destruction that can be dished out.

My proposol would be simple. Nothing that holds more than 3 rounds should be accessable to non military or law enforcement. That means shotguns, handguns, rifles... all of it.

3 bullets is more than adequate for hunting or home protection or self defense.

You can ban guns. Other countries have done it successfully. When is the last time you heard of someone getting shot in China or Japan?

If your not going to ban then, you make it so that gun owners have to have certain safeguards in place like locked, tamper proof cases and children should not be allowed to play with guns. I don't care how avid a hunter you are, kids lack the mental discipline and maturity to act responsibly.

How anyone in the world thinks its OK to teach an autistic child to use a firearm is beyond me. No one know what is going on in their heads.

playa2 wrote:Most people don't even grasp the concept of critical thinking... example: They talk of gun control to solve the problem when in this situation, the guns used were 'stolen' - no gun control will ever keep the guns out of the hands of a thief or gang members or the insane, yet people still cry out for gun control. It is totally illogical!

The gun did not kill, the person(s) using the gun killed just like a knife, poison, IED, etc. would only kill because the person's using it gave it the power to carry out a function.

People are far less likely to use a Knife because of the necessary close quarters. Any coward can pull a trigger though. Poisons (often) take some intelligence and forethought which, is often sadly lacking in the perpetrators. Guns are the most likely medium people use. You take the guns out of peoples hands or, let them know they will be criminally liable for any crime committed with that gun if you intend to own one.

I don't care if they are locked away, placed on the moon, if you buy a gun and someone gets their hands on it to use for a crime, YOU SHOULD BE LIABLE. Liable because you were negligent in your choice of storage.