The Gun Control Debate on ATS

*Steps up on soap box and taps microphone. Screeching sound ensues.*
Sorry about that.... I shall flog the sound guy. >_>

Ladies, Gentlemen - ATS members,

I thank you for coming here tonight to read this post. I hope that the thread title will draw ample numbers of readers to warrant some sort of positive change in discussions around the subject of gun control, truly a subject that is infected and spurs passion like few other subjects of politics that I know.

One thing I have noticed on ATS in the last few days is - quite understandably, considering the fact of the fateful day when innocent school children were massacred by some freak of nature in Connecticut - that quite commonly, when we discuss gun control, we adapt an "Us vs. Them" mindset. Us Gun Rights Activists (Yes, I am "for" guns, whatever that means) versus Them Gun Control Activists.

It is quite natural, and it is in all probability nothing less than human nature.

But let us remind ourselves why we so passionately discuss this subject with even more passion, even more ferver, after a public shooting, than otherwise. We do it because innocent people have died, and we do it because we all want to end these senseless mass murders. I have seen some gun rights activists and some gun control activists both throw around, obviously extremely offensive, insults like, "You would condone more shootings like this to happen!" as an argument for their cause. It's kind of disgraceful.

This is the Us vs Them mentality playing in.

This is not a war. This is NOT about "winning".

This is about ending, or at the very least severely limiting public shootings of any and all kinds. Because of this, either we all win, or we all lose. Only one side CANNOT win. Because we all want the same thing ultimately - to end the public shootings. Again, this means, either both sides win, or both sides lose.

What we need in the gun control discussions is balance. To come up with a solution in regard to the gun law debate, we need to discuss, and work, together, not against each other. Gun control activists need to steer away from those who would fanatically enforce an all-out ban on all kinds of firearms. Why?

Because we gun rights activists would never agree to it!

And gun rights activists need to be open for discussion in regard to gun control. No, more than that. We don't just need to be open for discussion. We need to listen, hear, what the gun control activists are saying. We need to NOT dismiss their arguments off-hand simply because they are "on the other side". We need not give our guns up. But we need to be there to help with our knowledge on firearms, and our opinions.

To help the gun activists in shaping a gun control politic that both sides can be happy with.

One thing I know for sure. The "Us versus Them" mentality that currently exists, does not work. If the two sides insist on staying in two warring camps like what I have seen so far on ATS, then, just as it currently is, the gun discussion will lead nowhere productive. Instead it will remain in this very position of stalemate, with no side agreeing with the other, no decisions or laws being passed, and no solutions being found, and insults being flung across the battlefield in fashion that really ought to be beneath us all.

And the mass killings will continue.

There IS no "us versus them". We're all in the same boat. (Me excluded. I do not live in America, so consider mine an outsider's objective view on the issue.) It's our kids being killed, from both camps as has obviously been seen - Lanza's mother was a gun rights activist, for one. Therefor, we're all trying to find a solution that will stop the mass shootings.

Now, we can either condemn these mass murders to continue by being unreasonable and refusing to calmly discuss, negotiate, converse, give and find common ground, or, we can sit down together, and work, discuss, together - in a polite fashion completely free from insults, jibes and snarky remarks that serve only to inflame the discussion further - to find a solution that everybody will be at least remotely satisfied with, and hopefully will ultimately end, or at least severely limit, the mass shootings.

You can NEVER have your way if you want to get rid of all guns. But you MIGHT just be able to get them to be kept locked away safely when not used. Be reasonable in what you want, and TRY to see it from the other side's point of view.

But until we work together on finding a solution, we won't find any, and innocent people will continue to die.

So...

Stop being rude to each other.

Stop making fun of each other or each others opinions.

Be respectful.

When you're informing someone that they are wrong - be respectful.

When you're saying their source might be biased, say "Hey, dude, I think your source might be biased", not "As if I'd rely on statistics from that bunch of gun control morons". Who knows? They might even reply, "Oh, you're right, they could be (perceived as) biased. I'll find a better source. My apologies."

"Hey, dude. Putting armed guards in schools might not be a good idea."
"You're right. But perhaps there's a middle-ground of some kind? After all, security guards do exist in schools all over the world. What do you think?"
"I think (X)..."

Be nice. Be calm. Be respectful. And work together, not against each other.

Together we can find a way to limit these insane acts of public mass murder. But divided, all we can do is argue like two groups of opposite-extreme raving fanatics. And thats what we are right now. Fanatics. On both sides. So which one do you want to be part of? The fanatics, or the solution?

There are also two myths or mistruths (Is that a word?) that I personally feel severely hinders this discussion. Myths that both sides need to stop relying on if we're going to get anywhere with these discussions.

Gun Rights Activist Myth: Guns do not kill people

This is of course semantics. Yes, we know guns don't kill people - the person holding them do - otherwise we would be sending the gun to jail, not the person holding them. But by and large, the weapon is designed with a few purposes, one of which is defense or offense - that is, in other words, killing.

Anti Gun Activist Myth: Guns are designed with one purpose only, to kill people

This is not true. Of course, hunting animals is also killing, 'tis true, but it is not killing humans. It's, in fact, the act of creating food and thereby feeding life. Well, kind of. Additionally, guns can be used for recreational shooting - which is a perfectly acceptable hobby - and for defense against wild animals. And, of course, self-defense. Killing. But let us stop with this talk about guns being designed ONLY to kill people. Like the other myth, it helps nobody, it only hinders progress in this very important discussion.

(Additional post coming. Please bear with me, and wait with replies. Thank you.)

In addition:

There is also a serious number of non-Americans chiming in on the issue here on ATS, because it is an international forum after all. An understandable reaction by Americans is to say that "This is none of their business", because they're not Americans. Both Americans and foreigners should keep this in mind. Foreigners, by simply offering their opinion in a humble fashion, and Americans by simply taking the opinion as a friendly suggestion, or another perspective offered in the friendliest of manners. Regardless of in which direction the opinion goes.

I would also ask each person when entering discussions in regard to gun control to, when they do, ignore any and all party political positions, and simply focus on gun control. Let us stop calling each other republicans or democrats as if this political position makes our opinions and thoughts on the subject invalid. In truth, we should be grateful that people from all sides of the political spectrum participate because this gives us unique opinions from every part of said spectrum.

If you're a Democrat, consider the Republicans an asset, and an informative second point of view. If you're a Republican, consider the Democrats the same. We (You, unfortunately not me) are all fellow Americans. Let's try to act like it.

Let's do this with dignity.

Remember - we're trying to find a solution to a problem, we're not trying to "win" over the other political party's followers. And remember the old adage. "United we stand, divided we fall." Well, in this case - United we might succeed (in ending or limiting public mass shootings). Divided, you can bet your sweet behind we most certainly will not.

Disclaimer: I know I too have been walking on the edge for what is acceptable in discussions in regard to this subject in the last few days. I apologize for my part, to those I have brawled with, and to the moderators for taking up their already busy time with it.

It goes to show you that no person, even me who I personally feel is able to remain unusually emotionally detached and logical in discussions such as this, reacts well to insults or even simple snarky responses. Of course, this means nothing productive can come from it, and therefor it should be left out of the discussions if we do indeed want to find a solution to the problem at hand.

I for one, promise that henceforth, I shall strive even further to remain logical, nice, and without resorting to insults, in discussions related to gun control. This is after all ATS, and I like to think that we can all strive to be friends here.

That is all I have. Thank you for your time, dear ATS readers, and I hope I have not trampled any toes, but perhaps instead I dare to hope that I may have inspired something good to come from this. I wish you all a good evening, or a good day depending on the hour, and a Very Merry Christmas.

Great post. I am what most people would consider a "gun nut". I tend to think that I am a "liberty nut", and that gun ownership is just one of many facets of liberty. Having said that, the only plan that I will agree to is one that does not prevent me from buying and owning the firearm of my choice, with the magazine of my choice, while keeping crazy people from getting their hands on a gun of any type. I personally keep all of my firearms and ammo in a safe. Obviously the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter did not. What about making it a law that a gun owner MUST have a registered safe with the state police. This way, if another shooting happens, or should I say WHEN the next one happens, whoever the registered owner is of the gun used will be held accountable. This should scare legal gun owners (like me) into being more responsible and locking up their guns.

As of right now, you must be 21 to purchase an AR-15 or similar weapon. How about changing that to 30 years old? At first glance, this may look good, but an 18 year old kid can join the Army and be handed an M-16. If one is old enough to fight for the global banking cartels using an M-16, then that person should be allowed to defend his or her home with an AR-15.

The only solution to all of this is LIBERTY. The liberty to carry a concealed firearm ANYWHERE and EVERYWHERE, provided you have purchased a firearm legally. This would prevent mass shootings in the future.

For those of you who think all out gun confiscation is the way to go... that will start a civil war. Is that what you want? You see, for people like me, there are two types of law. Man made law, and natural law. Natural law is superior to man made law. When man made law attempts to over ride natural law, those enforcing man made law lose the legitimacy as law enforcers, and I consider them nothing more than state run thugs and criminals, to be dealt with just like any other criminal that would break into someone's house to steal their property.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


I'm glad you like my post. Thank you.

I like to address the part of your post about keeping your guns in a safe. I am usually of the opinion that Sweden (my home country) has too restrictive gun laws. But one thing that we definitely have right, is the law in terms of storage of firearms. I don't remember the exact wordings of the law - but the gist of it is, when it's not being used, the weapon HAS to be kept locked in a gun safe strong enough to resist forced entry, and large enough to make it impossible (or extremely difficult) to drag the safe out of the house. I might be wrong on this, but I also believe it has to be anchored in the floor.

Failure to keep it there means you're in trouble.

I like to see a law similar to this in America as well. Perhaps in some way it can help stop those who are not mentally fit to own guns, from getting their hands on other people's guns.

In regard to the rest of your post I will refrain, for now, from addressing it, as I'm not sure I am knowledgeable enough of the subject to address it properly. I look forward to hearing other ATS members' opinions on the subject, however.

Guns are not pumped to the gills with mood-altering meds. Guns are not playing violent video games, watching violent movies and TV shows. Guns are not loading themselves.

It's not a matter of 'regulating guns' its a matter of regulating ourselves. WE ARE DANGEROUS not guns...

This is known as a pathetic fallacy.

reply to post by ConspiracyBuff


Yet guns still end up in the hands of the mentally ill and criminals, as we see in events such as that in Connecticut. So clearly, a regulation of guns must take place. The question we need to ask ourselves is to what extent, and in what form, this regulation will be.

reply to post by OptimusSubprime


Optimus, I pretty much agree with your post. OP well done on your post!

To address what Optimus said, I am all for trying to make things right to protect our Constitution. BUT!! Respectufully I have to at this moment disagree with any kind of intellegent compromise and here is why. Those of us who respect and revere the Constitution are under attack by those who DO NOT WANT COMPROMISE! They have an allegiance with a corrupt government and as we have all seen the anti second ammendment arguements, they have proven that compromise is OUT OF THE QUESTION. (sorry, not yelling, but just highlighting what I think as important)

It is our way or the highway, and a good example to put forth here, is the political theater that our elected officials are playing right now with the fiscal cliff. Our POTUS and the Dems, have no desire for compromise! They have blown their cover as far as I am concerned, that the only time the American people matter, is when they can rile us all up into a ferver to blindly follow their theatrical acts and believe they are there to help us!

Compromise is a beautiful thing when you have grown adults who have the ability to critically think things out and discuss them as mature adults often do! The problem I see, is that we have ignorant, spoiled children in government office, who have even more ignorant children who look up to them for their daily feedings and protection!

Originally posted by ConspiracyBuff
Guns are not pumped to the gills with mood-altering meds. Guns are not playing violent video games, watching violent movies and TV shows. Guns are not loading themselves.

It's not a matter of 'regulating guns' its a matter of regulating ourselves. WE ARE DANGEROUS not guns...

This is known as a pathetic fallacy.

This is the heart of the matter right here, but it's easier for TPTB and their minions to attack and demonize inanimate objects

Originally posted by seeker1963

Optimus, I pretty much agree with your post. OP well done on your post!

Thank you. I'm glad you liked it. I will chop up your post into a few different quotes as there are several things I would like to address in it. I know how annoying I personally find it when people do this, but the truth is still that it is easier to reply to it that way. I hope you forgive me for this and take no offense.

To address what Optimus said, I am all for trying to make things right to protect our Constitution. BUT!! Respectufully I have to at this moment disagree with any kind of intellegent compromise and here is why. Those of us who respect and revere the Constitution are under attack by those who DO NOT WANT COMPROMISE! They have an allegiance with a corrupt government and as we have all seen the anti second ammendment arguements, they have proven that compromise is OUT OF THE QUESTION. (sorry, not yelling, but just highlighting what I think as important)

You do not wish to compromize. This is something I can understand, because by and large, owning guns is a right. However, it is clear to me that some sort of change needs to happen (otherwise we would not have had the Connecticut event.)

For this to happen, both sides need to compromize. Give half ground each, so to speak. If you are unwilling to compromize, then the "other side" (again we enter into us vs. them, which is not good.) will not compromize either. The fact is, sometimes one must be the bigger person, and say, "I am willing to compromize, but that does not mean I will give up my rights!".

Hopefully, the other party will then say, "Okay. Let us sit down then, and discuss this, and hopefully, we can find a compromize that you and me both will be happy with."

On the other hand, if you are unwilling to compromize, there is no incentive for those on the other side to do so either. Sometimes we have to take the first step, even if it is an uncomfortable one.

It is our way or the highway, and a good example to put forth here, is the political theater that our elected officials are playing right now with the fiscal cliff. Our POTUS and the Dems, have no desire for compromise! They have blown their cover as far as I am concerned, that the only time the American people matter, is when they can rile us all up into a ferver to blindly follow their theatrical acts and believe they are there to help us!

This is the part that bothers me. You refer to them as the Democrats, and this part gives me the impression that you think of them as the enemy. They are Americans just like you, and just like you they want the best for their country. (Possibly with the President excluded, depending on how far into the rabbit hole we want to "believe").

You do not need to compromize with politicians or the President of the United States. The people of the United States are the ones you need to compromize with. Talk to. Discuss with, and together find a solution. Even those who seek to regulate guns. You have your reasons for feeling the way you do, and they have theirs.

If you don't take their point of view into account, they will not take your point of view into account, and then we're right back where we started. But dismissing them from the beginning as Democrats will not help you, nor will it help America.

Compromise is a beautiful thing when you have grown adults who have the ability to critically think things out and discuss them as mature adults often do! The problem I see, is that we have ignorant, spoiled children in government office, who have even more ignorant children who look up to them for their daily feedings and protection!

I know full well the disdain for politicians that exist in this world. I even share it myself, more so for some people than others. So I will not blame you for calling them ignorant, spoiled children. But the second part of it refers to your fellow citizens. This will no doubt anger them. Cloud their vision. And they will repay you with equally hurtful words. And then we're back at throwing insults rather than try to, together, find a solution to the problem at hand. This is what we must all try to refrain from, especially in this thread, so I hope you will indulge me and not use such terms in regard to them from here on, at least in this thread. Thanks.

I hope I have not offended you. Thank you for your post.

Dashawn Harris was punched or suffered a belt-lashing by his mother’s boyfriend, Christian Patrick, for every mistake he made during his Nov. 30 home-schooling session. The punishment reportedly lasted for hours and left the boy crying and bleeding. The mother, Lashay Patterson, did nothing to stop it. The problem, according to Patrick, was that Dashawn did not seem interested in the lesson, according to a preliminary hearing describing the final hours of the boy’s life.

News Link

There was no gun used in the death of this child. So, what do we do? Institute a ban on belts? Institute a ban on human hands?

Heres a current news article titled Teens allegedly beat homeless Raleigh man to death with rock

Maybe Congress should enact legislation banning rocks.

My intentions are not to be rude in light of the issue of "gun control". They are to point out the mere obvious - that it doesn't take a gun to kill a person, that practically any object can be used to commit murder, and that weapons or objects do not kill people but that people kill people.

There are news articles out there about people being clubbed to death by elephant tusks, being chopped and dismembered with machetes, being stabbed to death with pocket knives, and being killed with all other manner of object. Where are the activists marching against pocket knives? Where are the righteous calling for a ban on scissors?

The Second Amendment exists so that we Americans are empowered with the opportunity to take a stand and defend our freedoms against a tyrannical government, whether that government is foreign or domestic. Any attempts to limit, restrict or to diminish the armaments that we have the right to possess and bear in the defense of ourselves and our nation are direct attacks upon the very fabric of the Constitution and the Second Amendment.

reply to post by Gauss


My mention of the Democrats was in reference to the fiscal cliff and the fact that compromise is out the question, and no matter what the Republicans come up with, there will be no deal! See what I am saying? Now are there supporters of the current administration that are going to back them up no matter what? Absolutely! That is an AGENDA, and has nothing to do with a compromise.......

The same can be said for what your post is about, Gun Control! I have YET to see any form of compromise, from those who wish to dismantel our second ammendment.

Now ya see where I am coming from? Compromise is only as good as the two sides who are willing to come to a solution. Why should those of us be even willing to compromise with those who oppose us when they are so blinded by their agenda that our views and opinions no longer matter??

Look at my past posts. I have no love for either party.....just sayin...

This is pure facism with total disreguard to working things out like adults....

reply to post by Underworlds


I'm aware of this point of view, as I'm sure anyone who knows of the 1994(?) genocide in Rwanda is, where 800,000 people were hacked to death with machetes - after the United Nations had disarmed the entire country of its firearms.

So, yes, there ARE other ways to kill people. There is no denying that.

But, it is also important to the discussion that we recognize that firearms, unlike most murder weapons (which are improvised), has been designed with one of its specific uses being to take lives.

Where that leaves us, I'm not yet sure. But we need to be open with that part of the debate. People kill each other, it is true. But firearms are designed in part for this same purpose.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by Gauss

 

My mention of the Democrats was in reference to the fiscal cliff and the fact that compromise is out the question, and no matter what the Republicans come up with, there will be no deal! See what I am saying? Now are there supporters of the current administration that are going to back them up no matter what? Absolutely! That is an AGENDA, and has nothing to do with a compromise.......

The same can be said for what your post is about, Gun Control! I have YET to see any form of compromise, from those who wish to dismantel our second ammendment.

Now ya see where I am coming from? Compromise is only as good as the two sides who are willing to come to a solution. Why should those of us be even willing to compromise with those who oppose us when they are so blinded by their agenda that our views and opinions no longer matter??

Look at my past posts. I have no love for either party.....just sayin...

This is pure facism with total disreguard to working things out like adults....

edit on 21-12-2012 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)

I definitely see where you are coming from. My personal opinion is as always that the gun control issue must be one detached from either party's politics - because, it should be said, I know of many democrats who are also gun right activists. And if I searched long and hard, I am certain that I could find republicans on the other side of the fence.

However, I refuse to believe that the American people as a whole are unable to find a compromise with each other, in regard to what to do about the gun control issue. Now, if somebody in position of power is unwilling to compromise, what we must do is be open about it.

"This person is a fanatic. She will not compromize on this issue. She will not negotiate, she refuses to see things from my point of view. I cannot talk to her because it will lead nowhere. But I *am* perfectly willing to sit down and talk to somebody from the other side of the fence, who is willing to compromize, see things from my point of view, and listen. Somebody sensible."

Don't insult the people who refuse to compromize. Just show them, and everybody else, that they are hindering the discussion, not helping it. If you remain the bigger person, continue to make offers to compromize instead of refusing to do so, the other side will not only look bad, but that in turn will force them to elect leaders that are more sensible.

I think that in discussions as heated as that of gun control, being the bigger man will always pay off. Being willing to compromize - but not to the extent that you give everything to the other side without getting anything in return - will always pay off.

reply to post by Gauss


Not sure if you are purposely trying to be obtuse or not, but you have failed to mention anything I have brought up! You keep going back to gun control..........................................................

THUS proving my points!

reply to post by seeker1963


I'm not trying to be obtuse. But the purpose of this thread is compromizing in regard to gun control. Just take it for what it's worth, and if it seems senseless to you, then I apologize.

reply to post by seeker1963


When I read your previous post, I felt like you were saying that INTELLIGENT compromise requires all parties to be able to give-and-take, something you've not seen in these forums or from our elected representatives.

Here's my compromise position - just stay away from CONFISCATION of our (currently) legal firearms.

Here's my suggestion for "intelligent" gun control - enforce the provisions of the existing law as it pertains to persons with mental illness - as it stands NICS doesn't contain any real checks on mental instability as far as I have experienced.
MAYBE there needs to be a new provision about making firearms unavailable to felons and others that are restricted from purchasing a firearm by family, friends, non-FFL sellers, etc. and holding those folks responsible as well as the "shooter".
LIKELY there needs to be practices/regulations that actually checks for the documented & verified persons who are mentally unstable - downside is this sacrifices confidentiality of medical records - we'll have to figure out how to accomplish something workable.

OP - is this the kind of response you were looking for? It's a start IMO.

ganjoa

Originally posted by ganjoa
reply to post by seeker1963

 

When I read your previous post, I felt like you were saying that INTELLIGENT compromise requires all parties to be able to give-and-take, something you've not seen in these forums or from our elected representatives.

Here's my compromise position - just stay away from CONFISCATION of our (currently) legal firearms.

Here's my suggestion for "intelligent" gun control - enforce the provisions of the existing law as it pertains to persons with mental illness - as it stands NICS doesn't contain any real checks on mental instability as far as I have experienced.
MAYBE there needs to be a new provision about making firearms unavailable to felons and others that are restricted from purchasing a firearm by family, friends, non-FFL sellers, etc. and holding those folks responsible as well as the "shooter".
LIKELY there needs to be practices/regulations that actually checks for the documented & verified persons who are mentally unstable - downside is this sacrifices confidentiality of medical records - we'll have to figure out how to accomplish something workable.

OP - is this the kind of response you were looking for? It's a start IMO.

ganjoa

This is exactly the kind of post I was hoping for. Thank you, my friend.

What we have here is a perfectly reasonable line in the sand - do not confiscate my legally owned guns. I personally agree with this.

We also have perfectly good starting points for a discussion around how gun control needs to look.

Again, very good post. Thanks, man!

Militia and the People’s Gun Rights

Second Amendment
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.

Each and every us citizen is part of the militia, the militia is what is designed to protect you from government tyranny. Tyranny can come at you in many forms, and one of most widely used forms is used is by creating misconstrued and vague laws that impair your ability to defend our way of life as intended by the founders of this country.

Did you know that after Hurricane Katrina that all gun were confiscated by force, that was tyranny, that was an all out infringement on the 2nd amendment. That was just all out wrong; this is a prime reason we have a Militia… Where was the Militia in this case anyway??? It took NRA and a lawsuit to help New Orleans get their guns back. People you need to get involved in your communities, support your state militia, take a stand so crap like this doesn’t happen.

Now that all that is said; Here are my opinions:

1.Should Guns be restricted to the general public? There is no need to have guns of assault type for home defense or hunting

2.What do I mean by general public? Those that are not actively involved within the State Militia.

3.Should the Militia’s be restricted? They should have the same personal weapons access that the military, police, or other law enforcement has access to.

Now, How do we get the gun out of the hands of the criminal: That sounds like something the Militia and law enforcement can work together on …

Originally posted by Shdak
Militia and the People’s Gun Rights

Second Amendment
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.

Each and every us citizen is part of the militia, the militia is what is designed to protect you from government tyranny. Tyranny can come at you in many forms, and one of most widely used forms is used is by creating misconstrued and vague laws that impair your ability to defend our way of life as intended by the founders of this country.

Did you know that after Hurricane Katrina that all gun were confiscated by force, that was tyranny, that was an all out infringement on the 2nd amendment. That was just all out wrong; this is a prime reason we have a Militia… Where was the Militia in this case anyway??? It took NRA and a lawsuit to help New Orleans get their guns back. People you need to get involved in your communities, support your state militia, take a stand so crap like this doesn’t happen.

Now that all that is said; Here are my opinions:

1.Should Guns be restricted to the general public? There is no need to have guns of assault type for home defense or hunting

2.What do I mean by general public? Those that are not actively involved within the State Militia.

3.Should the Militia’s be restricted? They should have the same personal weapons access that the military, police, or other law enforcement has access to.

Now, How do we get the gun out of the hands of the criminal: That sounds like something the Militia and law enforcement can work together on …

I remember back when news of the gun confiscations during Katrina first happened, and when the reports of it started coming in to ATS. I was furious, even though I wasn't an American, nor a gun owner. I can only agree with you. It was tyranny, it was illegal - it was criminal! Even gun control activists need to see the dangers of police and military violating the law, the Constitution even, without legal support in any way, as they did back then. Even if you are for gun control, that kind of precedence is dangerous.

Additionally, while I do not necessarily agree with all your points made (I'm still making up my mind in regard to semi-automatic "assault rifle" style firearms), I do like your thoughts on the militia. Sweden, my country, has something called the Home Guard, something similar, but not quite, to your National Guard and militias. It is part of the Swedish Armed Forces, and members receive a week or two of training a few times a year. They are rarely allowed to have the weapons used at home, and never their own - but that's Sweden, where it is different from the US, and that part should be disregarded in the case of the US.

However, I could fully see a similar system be implemented in the US in terms of the state militias. Right now, I'm so-so in regard to militias because they often lack any and all forms of official support and, shall we say, approval from everything from the state government to the Armed Forces, the Police, and Washington.

Of course they shouldn't be controlled by them either - but in my opinion, there should only be one militia in each state. This would ensure that it did not become an extremist movement, because it would be representative of that state.

Again, though, I'm not an American, so take my opinion for what it's worth to you. Thanks for your excellent post.

Originally posted by Gauss
...it is also important to the discussion that we recognize that firearms, unlike most murder weapons (which are improvised), has been designed with one of its specific uses being to take lives.

You refer to firearms as "murder weapons" almost as if that is the only purpose that they serve. Just as they can be used for the commissions of murder, they can also be used in the defenses of the weak and innocent.

In your opening statements to this thread, you made it clear that you wanted an unbiased discussion of the issue. By painting firearms as murder weapons", don't you think for a moment that you may be pressing unfair bias against firearms in order to steer the debate towards a lopsided opinion of firearms?

I'm just a simple American businessman. I'm not a law enforcement officer, but every moment of every day I carry on my person a fully loaded firearm. I do not carry a "murder weapon" on my side. I carry a weapon of defense, and I have had cause to use that weapon on many occassions to stop robberies and to protect people being assaulted by others who were armed.

My business is located in the downtown area of the city in which I live. Until recently, I was the only business owner known to carry a firearm within the business community. As a result, my friend's businesses have almost all been robbed at least once in the past twelve years - some more than once. My business... it has never been robbed. Why? Because the bad guys know that I carry a firearm and that I will not hesitate to use it. Also, because I offer cash discounts to my customers if they open carry their firearms into my establishment and that scares the bad guys. They know that hitting my place would be a mistake not worth making.