OstrichSaK
Android Expert
The guy who shot himself in the foot is a moron. Period. You can't compare all pro-gun people to him because it's not fair. Your previous statement smacked of comparing ALL people who support gun rights to this guy and to anyone reading your post it perpetuates the redneck stereotype. Come see what I and those around me do in a weekend for competition and training with firearms and I promise you'll change your outlook. I avoid the unsafe gun owner you speak of at all costs and fortunately they're not as prolific as you seem to think. The problem is that the 99.9% of gun owners don't make the news it's the 0.1% that make headlines so most don't realize they're the extreme exception. The fact that nearly half of the population seems to think we need to eliminate firearms because of that 0.1% is silly.
This is where I disagree with both of you because to say we need some sort of qualification system to decide who should own firearms is creating more problems than it's solving. Driving requires a permit and that doesn't mean there are people who shouldn't be driving that are legal permitted to do so. Want to save lives? Take a look at how many people are killed every year in car accidents. Hell, hammers can be just as dangerous in the hands of someone determined. Just a few months ago a teenager killed both of his parents with a hammer. Not a gun, a hammer. Point is there are LOTs of things in the world that can be used to kill if you're determined enough. It happens weekly across the nation and daily across the world.
Actually, this is not true. Study history and you will see that the 2nd amendment was created SPECIFICALLY for controlling our own government. There is verbiage specifically to this throughout the US Constitution. The government was founded for the people and our founding fathers were intelligent enough to know that that government could become too powerful. The ONLY way to regulate this is through the threat of force. Think I'm full of it? Study history. Those who don't are destined to repeat it and the sad part is our Republic is already on track for the exact same fall that all the great dynasties prior to us suffered. It can happen and it does happen. Once weapons are regulated they will eventually become illegal and at that point the government can do ANYTHING it wants w/o the threat of physical harm. There are examples of this within the last several decades if you don't feel like digging back through the archives but I urge you to do some research before you take such a strong stand against something that is possible the ONLY thing standing between your freedom and tyranny from a dictator.
The only reason we're discussing this is because of the threat it's under. If it wasn't under threat and it wasn't heading quickly towards the need to use it I wouldn't be in this conversation at all because I wouldn't feel the need to stand up for a right that's not under immediate scrutiny.
To summarize, my opinion is not that we need to get rid of everything that kills or maims and replace it with teddy bears, stuffed unicorns, and stuff that glitters (I actually would like to introduce more pointy things that maim and kill if anything as a means of population control), my opinion is that the original intention of this amendment has been mostly neutered and the actual argument now is just a ploy used by politicians to garner votes so they can get down to the business of selling our interests to the highest bidders. "Well, I'm going to introduce a bill that allows the U.S. government to listen to your phone calls, enter your house without a warrant, and hold you indefinitely if we suspect you of something, but don't worry, we're going to let you keep that relatively harmless assault rifle, Oh and the new bill that I'm introducing, you'll like its name. It's going to be called the "Patriot Act"."[/QUOTE]
You keep saying that the general intention of the amendment has been neutered yet you have yet to quantify this crude statement with some sort of validation. You seem to be operating on an incorrect assumption because there are plenty of statements opposing what you seem to think the amendment was written for so I'm not sure where you get your 'facts' in this case.
Now, I wanted to start a new paragraph because I feel this last portion of your statement is important to clarify. Just because I'm pro-2nd amendment I am not, I repeat NOT a supporter of the Patriot Act. I feel that this is one of the single worst bills in terms of our freedom passed in our lifetimes. The fact that they claim they will make us safer by giving up our liberties and so many people bought it blows me away. Obama made no qualms about his stance on it when he was running for president. When it sunsetted he would see to it that it would not come back and would go away. How did that work out Obama? You get the office and my how quickly you turned on your promises. This Patriot Act is a direct affront to our rights as free men and women of this nation. Period. I don't care how they try to sugar coat it and scare the sheeple into thinking their very lives are at stake it's unconstitutional and gives the government WAY too much power. All that being said, what do you suppose we do against such challenges to our freedoms when they get more frequent and more egregious if we aren't allowed to possess firearms? That's a rhetorical answer because I already know the answer since this has played out dozens of times already in recent history and it ends the same way each and every time.
Larger than that and it's not the hunters I would worry about if I was our federal government with plans to slowly take our nation's wealth. The total number of US residents in the US military is WELL under 1% whereas the total number of US residents who legally own firearms is between 35-48% depending on what number you go with. Which one isn't important since even on the low end we're talking 35x more armed civilians than military folk. It's also estimated that if counted illegally owned firearms could push that number to well over half of the population. Still think it's a lost cause if we wanted to defend ourselves? When you look at it from the full perspective the US civilians are EASILY the largest army/militia in the world.
Take away our second amendment and watch how fast the remainder of our rights are taken away and our free nation is forced into poverty & servitude.
Let's add a DMV type Department to every constitutional right we are born with and everyone will be able to skip down the streets holding hands in complete safety without any worry of harm.
