Ok, cards on the table: I'm an Englishman of 31. I follow global politics as much as I can. I'm a centrist; anti-Trump, anti-Hillary, some liberal
opinions and some conservative ones; it depends on the matter at hand. Please don't start calling me a liberal snowflake or any of that playground
rubbish - let's have a conversation.
I'm pro-guns, but also pro gun-control. I'm not trying to start a partisan slanging match or a left vs right debate. I'm just wanting to have a
discussion regarding proposed gun control laws. I'd like to get some opinions from anti-control supporters, regarding what you believe and why you
believe it. This isn't me saying 'you're wrong'; it's me acknowledging that I may be missing something obvious or compelling which is skewing my
views. Hang up your liberal or conservative hat; it's not a team sport - don't argue just on the basis of doing the opposite of what your opponents
say. What do you really, really
Here is my understanding thus far - which again is not trolling or trying to rile anyone up. Hence this not being in the mud pit. So please respond
accordingly and we can have a productive discussion; hopefully.
- The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not
automatically applicable today. Also from my understanding, the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
surely doesn't apply to people's right to have assault rifles at home just for fun? Surely the words "Well regulated" support the notion of gun
control laws? Also it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued
to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.
- Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing? If I had children, for example, I'd want to know that mentally ill people can't just go
and buy a gun without some checks on their psychiatric health, any criminal records, history of depression etc. Surely this is just good logic? If you
have a wife/kids, wouldn't you feel safer knowing that not just anyone can rock up and buy a gun?
- Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category? I understand there's an argument here on the basis that such
records being hacked could make households a target for people who want to steal guns. I'm not quite sure where to stand on this one, but I don't
think I'd try to break into a house if I know the home-owner has a gun.
I guess those are my main queries. Why don't people accept that the 2nd amendment was written in 1791, and therefore it's sensible and rational that
it may be time to update it? It's a completely different world. And I absolutely can't understand the objection to background checks - please educate
me on that one. I can't see a single possible justifiable argument against it in a non-partisan discussion.
Obviously my views are inherently a little biased by my opinions and emotions on the subject, but I just don't see why this subject has to be so
divisive. Background checking does not mean anyone taking away your guns - it's literally making you and your family more safe.
Thanks in advance for constructive discussion!
edit on 16-4-2017 by fencesitter85 because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-4-2017 by fencesitter85 because: words