Society vs Guns

For those of you that have read my comments over the past few years know my stance on guns or more correctly firearms.

It has become Political Madness when it comes to people's views on the subject. The anti-gunners have no problems letting the government use their guns to forcefully take yours, and if you should resist they rejoice if you get killed by law enforcement defending themselves. They say it is for the greater good.

However I digress...



More and more each day I come across people that are anti-gun and I think most of actually believe that the mere existence of the gun causes a person to commit a crime. My father-in-law for instance is a far left liberal and we have had very heated conversations over everything from politics, God and of course guns. He told me once that I should not be allowed to have an ar-15 or a .45, because in his mind "The founders only had flint lock single shot rifles and derringers". Of course I explained to him that that was the cutting edge technology of that time and as it has progressed our ability to keep up in the domestic arms race should not be infringed upon.

Yesterday I had a friend I went to high school with blast me for posting a pro-gun image.



Here is what he said:

Bad logic. By this statement's reasoning you could say the arguments about slavery and which groups in society are allowed to vote were also settled around the same time. But they weren't. Guns weren't even mentioned in the original text of the constitution. It's called the "2nd amendment" for a reason. Amendment means "Hey, we had another idea!" The needs of our society changes with time. We, at one point, needed guns to ward off the Indians, witches, & bears. That era, and thus their utility, has ended. The quicker this is accepted. The easier the transition is.

Maybe I should have ignored him but I had to respond:

So who's responsible for your safety and security then? That's right you are, firearms are the means to achieve that. It is the reason that police and other forms of law enforcement carry them. It is to have the means to defend themselves from danger, not to protect you. You will never have a society that is free from people who will to do others harm. Thus a properly trained and well armed society is the best way to provide the best means to achieve safety and security for all.

Then I got to thinking what if society has changed and people are willing to be a helpless victim? It honestly scares the hell out of me.

Then this morning my messaged me and asked me to call her dad, so I did. My jaw hit the floor when he asked, "what is the best shotgun for home defense?" I had to ask him why did he want to know. First off this man hates guns and like many other far left liberals he thinks erroneously that it is the duty of the police to protect you. There are numerous court cases that state, that they have no duty to protect the public. He then goes on to tell me that there have been several break-ins ins his upper class CA city. Apparently one of his neighbors was stabbed in a home invasion and they stole several thousand dollars worth of jewelry and electronics. They did call 911 but it took them almost 20 minutes to respond.

I had always told him I call .45 it has a typical response time of 850 feet per second and it usually stops what ever it encounters. Then after I am safe I call 911 for clean up.

I explained to him what I thought was the best choice for him being in CA and all, was either a Remington 870 or a Mossberg 500 with a 18.5" barrel. I recommended he use bird shot for the first 2 rounds and then 00 buckshot for the rest. I then sent him a link so he could read up on CA self-defense laws and emphasized that he follow it to the letter.

It seems that we as a society have been deeply divided into two major factions, those that believe that they should have the means to defend ones self and those that think it is someone elses job to keep us safe.


On a side note: I think it would be extremely interesting in a city like Chicago that currently has record setting murders (mostly to due to drug/gang related crime), issue a 1 year CCW permit and implementing a stand your ground law for any resident of the city who does not have a criminal record of committing a violent crime or a felony. Just as an experiment to see what effect this has on its total crime rate.

Have you changed your mind on ownership of firearms in the recent months?

I know for the most part this is beating a dead horse so post your thoughts.

ETA: If you are anti-gun please help us understand why. What is your logic behind it?

reply to post by SWCCFAN


Seattle mayor to launch gun free zone program for private businesses

There is an interesting video in the link above.

They even cite that it will do little to prevent crime.

I believe that the only reason they are doing this is to inconvenience law abiding gun owners and more so condition the masses to further think gun owners are bad people and are more likely to cause crime. The two sides are deeply divided.

Well there goes my Idea for Chicago reducing its crime rates...

Breaking Illinois governor signs strict gun control bill into law effective immediately

Attempting to make criminals out of all gun owners.

Have you changed your mind on ownership of firearms in the recent months?

Nope still as pro gun as ever.

The way I see it considering our government's track record of foreign issues, arming drug cartels, and any 2 bit dictator or terrorist group they seem to think is friendly any weapon of their choice, then they turn around and say hey you John Q. Public guns are 'dangerous' in your hands.

IMO they have exactly zero 'moral authority' or any right to deny any American a firearm of their choice.

Anyone who seems to think the US government has the right to do this are fascist and they are proclaiming the government is the master not the servant of the people.

And by all rights your neighbor has zero rights to tell you what you can or can't own.

None what so ever.

Me, I haven't changed my mind on gun control; I'm all for it!



Its those idiots who don't take the time to aim before they shoot who cause all the problems. :shk:

Absolutely a fan of gun control. Please use BOTH hands!

Other thoughts.... Are there firearms I am not comfortable with my neighbor having? Yeah, there are. (I've seen his anger control issues with weeds, and it makes me think...) but would I want HIM to tell me what I can own? No.

I hesitate to draw lines about firearm ownership, because the pesky things don't stay where you put them. They are just like keys, you KNOW where you left them, but someone snuck in and put them somewhere else!

Now we can add this little gem to the mix.

www.washingtontimes.com... n-comes-after-americas-guns/

Only persons licensed and periodically relicensed by the national government could possess firearms.

All firearms must be registered with the national government.

All persons wishing to possess a firearm must pass a rigorous exam administered by the national government.

All firearms must be stored in locked containers separate from ammunition, and “bolted to a heavy or immovable object.”

Only a predetermined number of firearms and rounds of ammunition may be possessed by a properly licensed civilian.

Magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds.

Possession of a firearm may only occur after a seven-day waiting period.

No civilian could own or possess a firearm for self-defense unless he first demonstrates a clear and convincing need.

Individuals licensed to own firearms are subject to periodic and random inspections of their homes or businesses.

In order to be granted a license to possess a firearm, an individual must secure recommendations from “responsible members of society,” attesting to their “suitability to possess a small arm.”

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Originally posted by SWCCFAN

Bad logic. By this statement's reasoning you could say the arguments about slavery and which groups in society are allowed to vote were also settled around the same time. But they weren't. Guns weren't even mentioned in the original text of the constitution. It's called the "2nd amendment" for a reason. Amendment means "Hey, we had another idea!" The needs of our society changes with time. We, at one point, needed guns to ward off the Indians, witches, & bears. That era, and thus their utility, has ended. The quicker this is accepted. The easier the transition is.

Yes, an "AMENDMENT" to the constitution becomes a literal part of the constitution and holds just as much weight as the rest....

Were his argument actually valid then another "Amendment" would need to be ratified nullifying the 2nd Amendment.... Until such a time any gun control legislation whether local or national is unconstitutional.