Gun rights

[WCsweet<3]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

Ok, and on another note, in the above article, there is a quite by Kyle:
The founding fathers "had the same weapons the military did," he said. "We don't even have that today -- but don't try to take what I've already got."


God rest Chris Kyles soul, but I need to make a comment about this.....

Really??? this guy and others want to keep trying to put what life was like in 1776 to 2012??? First off, the guns in that day were single shot muskets (sorry if I make a gun mistake here, I dont know much gun history)..... The founding fathers DID NOT have high powered rifles or guns capable of killing multiple people in a short period of time!! Had they had that, the entire world would be the under US control! (exaggerating)

Guns back then took a minute or to to reload, and only one person was harmed or killed at a time.......

Ok, if what this quote states is the NRA's case for the second amendment to stand, then WE today should have the same guns our Founding Fathers had!! All gun manufacturers should only be able to make single shot gun powder muskets!!!

My $0.02 worths......

I read GC before I read the news today. Sad story, seemed like a nice guy.

[OSUPhantom]

I think it's important to understand the likely reason for the second amendment. While it's important for self defense I think one of the major reasons it was included is that an armed population of citizens can never truly be ruled by tyranny. The founding fathers likely wanted it as a way to keep the government in check by the threat of an armed populace if they tried anything.

[badgeguy]

Originally Posted by OSUPhantom

I think it's important to understand the likely reason for the second amendment. While it's important for self defense I think one of the major reasons it was included is that an armed population of citizens can never truly be ruled by tyranny. The founding fathers likely wanted it as a way to keep the government in check by the threat of an armed populace if they tried anything.

Yes, and we can see how well that is working in Syria......

[OSUPhantom]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

Yes, and we can see how well that is working in Syria......

We certainly saw how well disarming citizens works in North Korea and Germany circa 1933...

[badgeguy]

Originally Posted by OSUPhantom

We certainly saw how well disarming citizens works in North Korea and Germany circa 1933...

Ok, those governments are horrible, but have either country had any mass shootings? (And I'm not referring to events leading to WWII, but recently say post 1970s).

I ask because I have not seen any media converge on such things.....

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by badgeguy

Yes, and we can see how well that is working in Syria......

Originally Posted by OSUPhantom

We certainly saw how well disarming citizens works in North Korea and Germany circa 1933...

No one has seriously suggested disarming all citizens here.

All Godwining aside, these comparisons aren't really helpful or instructive IMO. Whether one is talking about the government, the culture or the reasons for wanting to control access to guns, the US isn't Syria or North Korea or Nazi Germany. The "gun problem" (for want of a better term) here is a product of our history, our culture and our constitutional government.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by OSUPhantom

I think it's important to understand the likely reason for the second amendment. While it's important for self defense I think one of the major reasons it was included is that an armed population of citizens can never truly be ruled by tyranny. The founding fathers likely wanted it as a way to keep the government in check by the threat of an armed populace if they tried anything.

That's part of it, but the roots of the Second Amendment are more varied and complicated than that, and different people and factions had different motives and considerations for supporting it (or being concerned about it).

Other concerns that might have carried some weight with some people were self-defense, law enforcement and even suppressing slave revolts and other insurrections.

And then there's the reason stated in the amendment, which since it is mentioned could reasonably be presumed to be the primary reason: to facilitate the organization of militias. Since militias are under government control, that is not the same as citizens opposing tyrannical governments.

[DGTess]

A significant part of the issue here in the US is semantics.

For many years, some people have wanted to have the "gun control" debate and others have been willing to have a "gun violence" conversation.

What started within the first days after Newtown was "gun violence" - but few want to deal with the underlying issues of the "violence" part of it. So when Gabby Giffords urges people to "do something" they will -- even if it's wrong. Especially if it's wrong.

If this nation truly wanted a gun violence debate we wouldn't be talking about the children of Newtown; we'd be talking about the children of Chicago -- far more of whom were killed by guns in 2012 than in Newtown. We'd be talking about all gun violence, not the unpreventable mass murders.

[badgeguy]

So, the latest news on this issue is now putting a liability tax for people who own guns...would that be the same as liability tax on our homes or cars?

Your thoughts......

BG

[adpimiz]

I've heard about some schools requiring parents to let the school know if they own a gun. That I find ridiculous.