reply to post by DaTroof
Nobody is denying that a firearm's main purpose is to kill, from small animals (varmint) or vermin, all the way up to dangerous game like Cape
Buffalo. This includes humans. The argument centers around the right defend one's gift of life from another that would take it. Some, including
myself, see it as a natural right, that is not only mentioned and elaborated on in the US declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers, but
also signed into law as a legal right in the US constitution.
Does wanting to own one make me want to own a lethal weapon? Yep it does. Just the same as owning a kitchen knife, a hammer, a sword, a spear, a
bow and arrow, a pistol, an axe, a shotgun, or any other arm.
There is a huge amount of ignorance going around on your side of the argument, not only on the nature of people, but also real actual law, the
concepts of the framers, and the rights of people.
I will restate what I've said in another thread:
So many people are also ignorant as to what constitutes arms versus ordinance. There is a categorical and legal difference.
Arms: Anything man portable that constitutes a personal weapon. Knives, swords, clubs, rifles, hammers, shovels, pistols, shotguns, spears, bows and
arrows, and so on... anything that can be used as a personal weapon.
Ordinance: Anything larger than man portable, may be crew served requiring more than one operator, or including explosives. Tanks, fighters, rocket
launchers, grenade launchers, artillery, and so on.
There is a category that overlaps the two. It is called a destructive device. They are expensive and require an in-depth background check by the FBI
and ATF which usually takes 6 months or more and requires you to give up your right to search and seizure for the duration that you own a "destructive
device". Some grenade launchers fall into this category and some very specific shotguns do too. Each individual round fired or used by these
destructive devices requires their own tax stamp and background check. By law it they are considered NFA Title 2 weapons. Fully automatic weapons are
treated exactly the same way. They are extremely expensive, require an extensive background check and waiting period, and temporarily relieve a person
of specific rights by owning one.
There is no coincidence that the places that treat firearms the most immaturely and ignorantly have the worst gun crime. Census and DOJ reports
indicate that there are over 800,000 violent crimes deterred a year by the presentation (not firing) of a firearm by a citizen who legally owns that
firearm. That's 1.5 a minute. Violent crime: Murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, assault.
The refutation of fact with opinion is appalling. The whole "I don't think you need it, therefore your natural rights ought to change" argument is
bogus, destructive, and wholly ignorant. You have a statistically higher chance of getting stuck by lightning than being harmed by a terrorist. You
have a statistically higher chance of being harmed by a terrorist than being shot with an "assault weapon" and you want to turn your back on what made
this country so livable for two statistical anomalies. If half the energy spent on this whole gun control debate was spent on cutting military
spending then I'd be satisfied. This is more about the legitimacy of the constitution rather than just the 2nd amendment. Ignoring one for the sake of
expediency means one might as well ignore all for the sake of expediency.
Firearms have never been subject to more laws, importation restrictions, criminalizing statutes, background checks, and other forms of oversight.
Please read the National Firearms Act of 1934. Please read the gun control act of 1968, please read the FOPA of 1986. Yet the impact of these laws on
crimes, violent or otherwise, committed with a firearm has been of such statistically small influence that the DOJ publicly says there's no
What bothers me the most is the lack of critical thinking by the general populace on this subject (the authority of the constitution) and the
prevalence of emotional knee-jerk reactions that not just try to ignore the facts of the situation, but refute them with opinion.
have found that people who are ignorant to firearms, have never used one, have never even really been informed about them, have an incredibly
immature outlook on them and treat them like a novelty, a toy, something to be trifled with. Likewise their views on violent crime are extremely
immature. You see this is major cities that endorse gun control. The very communities that suffer the worst violence also vote heavily in favor of gun
I'm a fairly liberal guy. Actually, on political surveys that use an X/Y graph with Conservative on the extreme right, Liberal on the extreme left,
Libertarian on the bottom and Authoritarian on the top, I land on the 0,0 coordinate. But I have had left wingers tell me that firearms owners are
"itching" to use them, as though they were some murderous loon just waiting for an excuse. Everyone I have met who owns a firearm has the same
nightmare, having to use that firearm on another human being. It's not some fantasy, it's a nightmare.
edit on 11-4-2013 by Galvatron because:
(no reason given)