Is the price we pay for 2nd amendment freedom too high?

[Squire Robertsson]

 

[canadyjd]

There are issues more complex than either side of the gun issue allows.

We are not, as a nation, in the same as we were a couple centuries ago.

Then an 18 year old was an adult, often raising and providing for a family. Now a 20 year old is most often a child.

Then armed citizens were a reasonable assurance of the government never evolving into....well...what it is today. Now one would be a fool to think an AR-15 a suitable weapon against government aggression.

Then guns were designed primarily for necessity. People owned guns because people needed guns. Now most own guns for pleasure, and because "they can".

I am not at all opposed to the 2nd Amendment, even after these shootings. BUT I would not object to restrictions on the types of weapons sold (and a ban on AR-15 style weapons, high capacity magazines, kits to make guns automatic, etc ).

I agree with all but the total ban.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

I agree with all but the total ban.

peace to you

I just can't see a legitimate reason, other than "I want one" (and I do want one), for having an AR-15 with high capacity magazines.

 

[canadyjd]

I just can't see a legitimate reason, other than "I want one" (and I do want one), for having an AR-15 with high capacity magazines.

I have learned there are entire cultures within America that I have little to no exposure to but are certainly valid and protected by our constitution.

If someone wants to spend $800 on a weapon and hundreds of dollars on ammo for no other reason than to shoot targets or tree stumps on their property just for the thrill, then so be it.

I don’t have to understand anything other than they want to and it’s not illegal.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

I have learned there are entire cultures within America that I have little to no exposure to but are certainly valid and protected by our constitution.

If someone wants to spend $800 on a weapon and hundreds of dollars on ammo for no other reason than to shoot targets or tree stumps on their property just for the thrill, then so be it.

I don’t have to understand anything other than they want to and it’s not illegal.

peace to you

I agree. As long as it is legal.

 

[JonC]

It is kinda a circular argument.

That said, I am not anti-gun (I own several). Just saying examples of lives saved because guns are readily available is a circulator argument (don't outlaw guns because then we can't defend ourselves against people who have guns).

I'm from the South. I suspect @Reynolds will know what I am talking about when I say banning guns won't take guns out of our hands.

For the record, I am for compromise - ban guns in the Blue states. They'd probably end up shooting a toe off anyway.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It's more like MSM doesn't report stories like this.

Just saying examples of lives saved because guns are readily available is a circulator argument (don't outlaw guns because then we can't defend ourselves against people who have guns).

 

[AustinC]

It is kinda a circular argument.

That said, I am not anti-gun (I own several). Just saying examples of lives saved because guns are readily available is a circulator argument (don't outlaw guns because then we can't defend ourselves against people who have guns).

I'm from the South. I suspect @Reynolds will know what I am talking about when I say banning guns won't take guns out of our hands.

For the record, I am for compromise - ban guns in the Blue states. They'd probably end up shooting a toe off anyway.

If we eliminated big cities, every State in the Union would be red. Go into rural America and you find conservative people with traditional values. Go into large cities and you have people who don't fully grasp how dependant they are on the conservative producers of their food and the conservative transporters of their goods. It's an interesting disconnect that will hit most home as we face food shortages and supply line problems.

 

[Reynolds]

It is kinda a circular argument.

That said, I am not anti-gun (I own several). Just saying examples of lives saved because guns are readily available is a circulator argument (don't outlaw guns because then we can't defend ourselves against people who have guns).

I'm from the South. I suspect @Reynolds will know what I am talking about when I say banning guns won't take guns out of our hands.

For the record, I am for compromise - ban guns in the Blue states. They'd probably end up shooting a toe off anyway.

It is not really a circular argument because you can not in an instant take away all guns. Guns are to defend us from a tyranical govt, not from ourselves.

 

[Reynolds]

I just can't see a legitimate reason, other than "I want one" (and I do want one), for having an AR-15 with high capacity magazines.

I can see plenty. 1. Defend myself from a tyranical govt. 2. Hunt hogs. 3. Defend myself against criminals. 4. They are fun to shoot.

 

[atpollard]

We are approaching the point where I can print a fully automatic machine gun at home … so “banning firearms” is an attempt to unring a bell. We need more emphasis on responsible ownership and basic gun safety education and greater enforcement of existing laws. Criminals with guns are responsible for a disproportionate share of the problem.

Our failure to really deal with mental health issues is another “low hanging fruit” to reduce violence. Schools talk tough on “anti-bullying”, but the reality on the ground is a silent conspiracy to do nothing to avoid creating “problems” for the administration. A person that needs to talk with a counselor at the local “Behavioral Heath” office has an 8 week delay for their first session … far too long for someone struggling in crisis mode.

The only thing easier to obtain than an illegal handgun is illegal drugs. If you crack down on legal handguns, the illegal drug pipeline will just expand to provide one more product.

Ultimately, it is a crisis of spiritual darkness. All attempts to fight spiritual battles with worldly solutions (like Gun Control) are fore-doomed to failure. God … and only God … changes hearts.

 

[JonC]

It is not really a circular argument because you can not in an instant take away all guns. Guns are to defend us from a tyranical govt, not from ourselves.

I get it. One issue, of course, is we do not (as individuals) have guns that are sufficient to defend against a tyrantical government. But it does make for some pretty good movies and video games.

 

[JonC]

I can see plenty. 1. Defend myself from a tyranical govt. 2. Hunt hogs. 3. Defend myself against criminals. 4. They are fun to shoot.

They are fun to shoot is perhaps the only good reason.

Folks who need an AR-15 for self defence have no business handling a gun.

I don't know about hogs. I can take a deer with one shot from a rifle. But I have never hunted hogs.

But I no longer hunt. Sold my rifles (I think I have a 22 for plinking somewhere). Just have shotguns and pistols now (and the 22).

 

[just-want-peace]

We are approaching the point where I can print a fully automatic machine gun at home … so “banning firearms” is an attempt to unring a bell. We need more emphasis on responsible ownership and basic gun safety education and greater enforcement of existing laws. Criminals with guns are responsible for a disproportionate share of the problem.

Our failure to really deal with mental health issues is another “low hanging fruit” to reduce violence. Schools talk tough on “anti-bullying”, but the reality on the ground is a silent conspiracy to do nothing to avoid creating “problems” for the administration. A person that needs to talk with a counselor at the local “Behavioral Heath” office has an 8 week delay for their first session … far too long for someone struggling in crisis mode.

The only thing easier to obtain than an illegal handgun is illegal drugs. If you crack down on legal handguns, the illegal drug pipeline will just expand to provide one more product.

Ultimately, it is a crisis of spiritual darkness. All attempts to fight spiritual battles with worldly solutions (like Gun Control) are fore-doomed to failure. God … and only God … changes hearts.

AMEN, AMEN, & AMEN!!!!

 

[Revmitchell]

Has no one caught on that most of these mass shootings are at schools. The gun free zones are the problem not gun ownership. Its like the left wants them left that way so they have an issue. regardless its absurd

 

[Reynolds]

I get it. One issue, of course, is we do not (as individuals) have guns that are sufficient to defend against a tyrantical government. But it does make for some pretty good movies and video games.

We actually do have sufficient weapons. The military can not defeat the armed population without totally destroying the nation completely. I am good friends with a lot of SF and retired SF. They are all 100% convinced the military will not fight the American people.

 

[Reynolds]

They are fun to shoot is perhaps the only good reason.

Folks who need an AR-15 for self defence have no business handling a gun.

I don't know about hogs. I can take a deer with one shot from a rifle. But I have never hunted hogs.

But I no longer hunt. Sold my rifles (I think I have a 22 for plinking somewhere). Just have shotguns and pistols now (and the 22).

You try to kill an entire sounder of hogs before they run off. 30 and a mag change is common.

I NEED what I need for self defense. I don't want to bring sufficient firepower. I want to bring overwhelming firepower.
Go back and look at the 2A. Pay close attention to what the definition of Militia was when it was ratified. Pay even closer attention to what "regulated" meant.
"Well regulated militia" does not mean what most today try to say it means.

We don't have Constitutional rights because we can demonstrate need. We have them because COTUS enumerated them.

 

[Reynolds]

They are fun to shoot is perhaps the only good reason.

Folks who need an AR-15 for self defence have no business handling a gun.

I don't know about hogs. I can take a deer with one shot from a rifle. But I have never hunted hogs.

But I no longer hunt. Sold my rifles (I think I have a 22 for plinking somewhere). Just have shotguns and pistols now (and the 22).

Another point, even though I have already responded. Do we want to allow ourselves to go down the slippery slope of requiring the establishment of "need" to continue to have our enumerated Constitutional rights?
The slippery slope is not a "fallacy". It is a historically confirmed fact.

 

[AustinC]

You try to kill an entire sounder of hogs before they run off. 30 and a mag change is common.

I NEED what I need for self defense. I don't want to bring sufficient firepower. I want to bring overwhelming firepower.
Go back and look at the 2A. Pay close attention to what the definition of Militia was when it was ratified. Pay even closer attention to what "regulated" meant.
"Well regulated militia" does not mean what most today try to say it means.

We don't have Constitutional rights because we can demonstrate need. We have them because COTUS enumerated them.

Who do you imagine you are defending against? Is your area of the US so overrun with local warlords that you have a need for a compound full of weaponry to combat against these warlords?
Honestly, Reynolds, do you not read the history of the early church and then look at yourself and cringe at how far removed you are from them?
Your own words reveal a person who is living in paranoia rather than in joyful faith that the Commander of the Lord's Army has you in the palm of his hand.

 

[Salty]

... It is a historically confirmed fact.

Well, Reynolds - you are finally getting it - you are trying to confuse the liberals with the facts!