General / Off-Topic Gun Nut America

[Cydramech]

"The law enforcer is the 2nd most morally-reprehensible creature in the world. The only creature more morally-reprehensible is the one who votes to affirm the law."
Right... Just as i said previously, you boys created your own twisted philosophy, and nothing it this world can make you to understand the other side, or give you any sense of decency, futhermore? You think the black is withe and the white? Black. But in truth? Your true toughs after tossing aside all the self righteous moral self-justifications? your problems, with the law officer the voter, and with the politicians are pretty simple. We are in your way to get what you want, we are in the other corner of the box ring. And thats all. The rest of it? !

You're awfully overestimating your self-importance to believe yourself in anyone's way. At the end of the day, the law-abiding citizen-voter will roll over and die without a fight. Such creatures don't have the moral strength to fight for their right to life, and that's what makes them easy for the elites to manipulate. In the end, you folk do get the government you deserve: one that uses you as the pawns you make yourself out to be. The problem however, is it eventually affects everyone else.

So I do not have a twisted philosophy, because I'm not the one that acts like as if one group of criminals is any better than other, I don't accept that anyone has the right to my life, I don't vote for evil, and I certainly am not the one that asks any group of street thugs to protect me. These are the things you do by calling 911, waging war, supporting troops, and begging for others to be forced into doing things. There is not a government that has ever existed that did not commit the very same acts it criminalizes other over.

"I never said whether or not I think anyone is just a mere chess spawn. The fact is someone signed up to fight for someone else's bull"

Is that so? But if you are a gang or crime family member, than you too signed up to be someone else's bully... gangs and crime families too have leadership, right?

Yes, your system is just a highly-organized crime spree. The only difference between the Mafia and government is your faith in the latter.

"It's certainly better for me since I would know who to look for and what to prepare for."
(Yadda yadda)

Yeah... You glorify the honesty of a criminals as makes them saints, you saying their actions are straight, and vilify the shepherd dog, because they are standing in your way, and vilify the sheep because they are don't want to be eaten.

You support a criminal organization as we speak. I do not; I quit supporting criminal enterprises a long time ago, and that includes government.

It's also not that sheep don't want to be eaten, but that sheep refuse to fight back that I hate. That you don't have the will to defend your own life by any means necessary and condemn those that do, that is what I hate most of all.

In your eyes the world is a jungle, and you are the apex predator the rest of it? Enemy, or prey.

First you try to tell me about the world being black and white, then you accuse me of viewing the world like a jungle.

Well, here is a thing about the so called straight actions of criminals. They are straightly bad to everyone else... And that's why you never ever can have the moral upper hand.

Because if what you do, is a trouble to everyone else? You can't be the good guy, or the "gray".

So, want to tell me what you'll do when everyone is a registered criminal? I never actually expanded on how I'm an ex-gang member. Actually since I never claimed to be a gang member I certainly cannot be an ex-gang member on my own accord, I held some information back: it is what your government painted me as before "upgrading" my status to that of a domestic terrorist and it's the whole reason I drifted towards anarchism.

Once upon a time, I believed government was a good thing. My family had a major military background. I was going to join the military and save the world from a bunch of terrorists, or so I thought. I found out one day just six years ago about my citizen status and the status of many other people I knew. So much for your that I somehow "don't understand the other side", when I was in fact molded by the very stuff people like you support.

For cars, there is a training and licensing requirement.

I don't understand why there is an issue with gun owners needing training and licensing.

As for politicians, there should be a training and licensing requirement, too...

Z...

Yes, do regulate cars the same way you regulate guns.

I think there sees to be some confusion in regards to the tool, and the one that wields it.

Z...

Oh really? Despite the fact every soldier, every cop, every politician is there because they choose to be, you're going to claim them to be mere tools and not willful associates? No, that's not how responsibility works. If the soldier wants to quit fighting war, he should quit doing so or never have signed up in the first place. If the cop doesn't want to keep enforcing bad laws, then he shouldn't be a cop to begin with. If the voter (you) want to limit authority so bad, he shouldn't be voting to begin with.

 

[Cydramech]

I much more afraid of the police than shady looking fellas that hang around my block. Trust in police is completely broken and it is their own doing.

When I see police, I think of them as soldiers who see me as the enemy.

Interestingly, even the police do not suggest relying on them.

Exclusive: After Westgate, Interpol Chief Ponders 'Armed Citizenry'

"Societies have to think about how they're going to approach the problem," Noble said. "One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you're going to have to pass through extraordinary security."

"How do you protect soft targets? That's really the challenge. You can't have armed police forces everywhere," he told reporters. "It's Interpol's view that one way you protect soft targets is you make it more difficult for terrorist to move internationally. So what we're trying to do is to establish a way for countries … to screen passports, which are a terrorist's best friend, try to limit terrorists moving from country to country. And also, that we're able to share more info about suspected terrorists."

In the interview with ABC News, Noble was more blunt and directed his comments to his home country.

"Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly?" Noble said, referring to states with pro-gun traditions. "What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' This is something that has to be discussed."

"For me it's a profound question," he continued. "People are quick to say 'gun control, people shouldn't be armed,' etc., etc. I think they have to ask themselves: 'Where would you have wanted to be? In a city where there was gun control and no citizens armed if you're in a Westgate mall, or in a place like Denver or Texas?'"

D.C. Police Chief Has ‘Counterintuitive’ Advice for Those Confronted With Active Shooter: ‘It’s the Best Option for Saving Lives’

“Your options are run, hide or fight,” Lanier told Anderson Cooper. “The facts of the matter is that most active shooters kill most of the victims in 10 minutes or less. The best police department in the country is going to be about a five minute to seven minute response.”

“I always say if you can get out, getting out is your first option, your best option,” she continued. “If you’re in a position to try and take the gunman down, take the gunman out, it’s the best option for saving lives before police can get there. And that’s kind of counterintuitive to what cops always tell people. We always tell people, ‘don’t take action, call 911, don’t intervene in the robbery.’ We’ve never told people, ‘take action.’ This is a different scenario.”

Others...

Meet the Former Cop Who Became an Anarchist
Former decorated cop says abolish all police

 

[beelbeebub]

One thing I noticed after the shootings in Dallas.

A black man legally carrying an AR15 was initially wrongly identified as a suspect. Luckily for him, he managed to hand himself over to the police before they accidentally shot him.

Now, imagine if that gentleman, in self defence against the sniper, actually loaded and shouldered his rifle (after all if he keeps it unloaded and slung it's just an annoying stick). How are the police to know the difference between an active shooter (the sniper) and an armed civilian (sheepdogs, or watchdogs I believe they like to call themselves)? How are armed civilians to know the difference between an active shooter and an armed civilian firing at the shooter?

Pulling out guns during a shooting incident, or in public to be honest, just alarms and confuses people without actually doing any good.

have there been any incidents where a mass shooting has been stopped by "a good guy with a gun"?

The san Bernardino shootings did have a "good guy with a gun" (off duty police officer as security I believe) and he didn't help much.

Set that against the huge number of accidental shootings and suicides (let's forget murder).

Most people who attempt suicide by non fire arm methods survive and most people who survive suicide go on to die of other causes. However, if you attempt suicide by fire arm you are 95% likely to succeed. There are huge numbers of people dead now because there was a gun in the house when they were dumped or drunk or fired or broke.

Finally, the old "mere violent crime in the UK than US" myth. The US records violent crimes as murders, s, assault with a deadly weapon etc. There are many crimes that don't make it onto the list, punching someone in the face for example.

The UK doesn't record violent crime only "offences against the person" which includes assault (shoving someone), flashing someone, peeping tom, making a threat etc.

 

[Monk]

Spoiler

One thing I noticed after the shootings in Dallas.

A black man legally carrying an AR15 was initially wrongly identified as a suspect. Luckily for him, he managed to hand himself over to the police before they accidentally shot him.

Now, imagine if that gentleman, in self defence against the sniper, actually loaded and shouldered his rifle (after all if he keeps it unloaded and slung it's just an annoying stick). How are the police to know the difference between an active shooter (the sniper) and an armed civilian (sheepdogs, or watchdogs I believe they like to call themselves)? How are armed civilians to know the difference between an active shooter and an armed civilian firing at the shooter?

Pulling out guns during a shooting incident, or in public to be honest, just alarms and confuses people without actually doing any good.

have there been any incidents where a mass shooting has been stopped by "a good guy with a gun"?

Spoiler

The san Bernardino shootings did have a "good guy with a gun" (off duty police officer as security I believe) and he didn't help much.

Set that against the huge number of accidental shootings and suicides (let's forget murder).

Most people who attempt suicide by non fire arm methods survive and most people who survive suicide go on to die of other causes. However, if you attempt suicide by fire arm you are 95% likely to succeed. There are huge numbers of people dead now because there was a gun in the house when they were dumped or drunk or fired or broke.

Finally, the old "mere violent crime in the UK than US" myth. The US records violent crimes as murders, s, assault with a deadly weapon etc. There are many crimes that don't make it onto the list, punching someone in the face for example.

The UK doesn't record violent crime only "offences against the person" which includes assault (shoving someone), flashing someone, peeping tom, making a threat etc.

Many good points here. I really don't think it is appropriate for people in developed nations to be carrying guns into urban areas (suburbs included).

The only so called "good guy with a gun" scenario I'm familiar with was a man shooting a person in a grocery store parking lot. That person was committing the horrible crime of stealing...bread. More terrible than that, the gun man was able to get off on a Stand Your Ground law that permits people to shoot each other when feeling threatened. AKA, shoot any black person you want to, white people.

 

[Cydramech]

One thing I noticed after the shootings in Dallas.

A black man legally carrying an AR15 was initially wrongly identified as a suspect. Luckily for him, he managed to hand himself over to the police before they accidentally shot him.

Now, imagine if that gentleman, in self defence against the sniper, actually loaded and shouldered his rifle (after all if he keeps it unloaded and slung it's just an annoying stick). How are the police to know the difference between an active shooter (the sniper) and an armed civilian (sheepdogs, or watchdogs I believe they like to call themselves)? How are armed civilians to know the difference between an active shooter and an armed civilian firing at the shooter?

Pulling out guns during a shooting incident, or in public to be honest, just alarms and confuses people without actually doing any good.

have there been any incidents where a mass shooting has been stopped by "a good guy with a gun"?

Uber driver, licensed to carry gun, shoots gunman in Logan Square
Concealed Carrier Prevents Mass Shooting At SC Nightclub
Police: Suspect Shot Dead During Attempted Robbery In Brooklyn Park
Concealed Carrying Hero Battled Mass Shooter In Houston: Media Silent

The san Bernardino shootings did have a "good guy with a gun" (off duty police officer as security I believe) and he didn't help much.

Private citizens tend to have better training than most cops.

Set that against the huge number of accidental shootings and suicides (let's forget murder).

Most people who attempt suicide by non fire arm methods survive and most people who survive suicide go on to die of other causes. However, if you attempt suicide by fire arm you are 95% likely to succeed. There are huge numbers of people dead now because there was a gun in the house when they were dumped or drunk or fired or broke.

Finally, the old "mere violent crime in the UK than US" myth. The US records violent crimes as murders, s, assault with a deadly weapon etc. There are many crimes that don't make it onto the list, punching someone in the face for example.

The UK doesn't record violent crime only "offences against the person" which includes assault (shoving someone), flashing someone, peeping tom, making a threat etc.

Murder & Homicide Rates Before & After Gun Bans
Comparing Murder Rates Across Countries
The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier
Choose Your Own Crime Stats - AdmisTheNoise
Gun Crimes Plummet Even as Gun Sales Rise
CDC Releases Study on Gun Violence: Defensive gun use common, mass shootings not
U.S. gun violence: The story in charts and graphs
The So-Called Gun Show Loophole: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

Additionally:

Ethics from the Barrel of a Gun: What Bearing Weapons Teaches About the Good Life
The Klans' Favorite Law
Gun Clubs at School: Not so long ago, they were common — and safe.
Violence, Guns, & Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis
Old White Guys and the Chuck Norris Rule

 

[Adept]

Right. More to the Ignore list. There's no point in arguing with with a person who loves guns more than people and who clings to the fantasy that only the armed citizen has any say. I've read Starship Troopers and Beyond this Horizon as well, and although they have some merits as Sci-Fi they are not terribly good guidebooks for understanding human societies.

 

[Cydramech]

Right. More to the Ignore list. There's no point in arguing with with a person who loves guns more than people and who clings to the fantasy that only the armed citizen has any say. I've read Starship Troopers and Beyond this Horizon as well, and although they have some merits as Sci-Fi they are not terribly good guidebooks for understanding human societies.

Wherein my willingness to go to any lengths necessary to preserve not only my livelihood but those around me means I somehow love guns more than people, that's fine with me. I'll happily proclaim how I love guns more than people.

"When we say that man chooses for himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men. For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative, at the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to choose the worse. What we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all." - Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialist & Marxist

 

[Minonian]

I put it short. You are a criminal in FBI no fly list...

You are probably the last person whom ANYONE ever going to ask about things like this, and sane man never going to take seriously your "wisdom" in this matters.
When you talking a criminal talking. When you talking, we listen a man who have no regard toward human life, law or whatever.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Right. More to the Ignore list. There's no point in arguing with with a person who loves guns more than people and who clings to the fantasy that only the armed citizen has any say. I've read Starship Troopers and Beyond this Horizon as well, and although they have some merits as Sci-Fi they are not terribly good guidebooks for understanding human societies.

You are right.

 

[Monk]

I put it short. You are a criminal in FBI no fly list...

You are probably the last person whom ANYONE ever going to ask about things like this, and sane man never going to take seriously your "wisdom" in this matters.
When you talking a criminal talking. When you talking, we listen a man who have no regard toward human life, law or whatever.

That is incredibly short-sighted.

Criminality is often percieved as the only clear choice for the impoverished. You think kids want to join a gang? Hardly, but in a world with no hope, no help and no love...a gang brings the camaraderie and family that is missing elsewhere.

People make mistakes, people were young and stupid, and people deserve to be reformed. This attitude of forever marking ex-convicts as bad people only serves to return them to the cycle they are trying to escape.

You seem to have more compassion for regulation and draconian laws than real people.

Ok, got that off my chest

Now, should an ex-con be able to buy weapons? Perhaps, with sensible consideration. Again, I believe in reform so maybe a recent ex-con can't buy any guns. Then, after some time of good behavior, they could perhaps purchase a small bolt-action rifle. Some more time and perhaps they may be allowed something of higher caliber. I'd stop short of letting them buy pistols...and I think assault rifles should be banned for all civilians.

 

[Minonian]

The way how he speaks and talks saying me he is beyond help.

"You seem to have more compassion for regulation and draconian laws than real people."
Wrong. As i stated the law and how you apply must be flexible, (and im not speaking about corruption, and backdoors) because the words on the paper is one thing, the spirit? Is another.
But! There is times when the hands of law must be a closed fist.

Edit; Not to mention, as we talked about earlier, America just don't want to change, and there is no hope to push trough any serious law about gun control, in the system. We talked out ourselves, told what we think about it, and had a good chit chat. For my part that's the end of it. There is no reason to take part of the pointless arguing and quarrel what's coming right now, with the forum trolleys.

 

[lysan]

That is incredibly short-sighted.

Criminality is often percieved as the only clear choice for the impoverished. You think kids want to join a gang? Hardly, but in a world with no hope, no help and no love...a gang brings the camaraderie and family that is missing elsewhere.

People make mistakes, people were young and stupid, and people deserve to be reformed. This attitude of forever marking ex-convicts as bad people only serves to return them to the cycle they are trying to escape.

You seem to have more compassion for regulation and draconian laws than real people.

Ok, got that off my chest

Now, should an ex-con be able to buy weapons? Perhaps, with sensible consideration. Again, I believe in reform so maybe a recent ex-con can't buy any guns. Then, after some time of good behavior, they could perhaps purchase a small bolt-action rifle. Some more time and perhaps they may be allowed something of higher caliber. I'd stop short of letting them buy pistols...and I think assault rifles should be banned for all civilians.

They already are, its very very difficult to have any assault rifle even in the states. Unless you're talking about AR type rifles, and they are not assault rifles

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The way how he speaks and talks saying me he is beyond help.

"You seem to have more compassion for regulation and draconian laws than real people."
Wrong. As i stated the law and how you apply must be flexible, (and im not speaking about corruption, and backdoors) because the words on the paper is one thing the spirit? Is another.
But there is times when the hands of law must be a closed fist.

First you need to make sure that the "law" is honest?

 

[Brimstone]

Wow I assumed this thread had died, because it was locked. Either way, I noticed a few people arguing what the 2nd amendment actually means, and while I suspect people will always continue to argue over it, here is what an expert had to say:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

I bolded the important bits.

 

[Minonian]

First you need to make sure that the "law" is honest?

Yeah, This is the basic. Edit; But there is a thing, a lot of criminal trying to say he is honest, And even worst they are good enough in self convincing to even them belíve it. But the law is not honest, and he is nothing more but an innocent victim.

But the way i see, if the USA wants to change how weapons dealt with, first he must change the whole law, and self governing system otherwise as we talked about with monk Earlier? It's technically impossible, to push trough.

@Cydramech. I will be brief. Your problem is to see everybody, as an ill willed criminal. Sorry! But you are just beyond the point where we can humanly talk with each others, or reach each other. I see no point to continue this conversation, because the differences between us, is just too big, to bridge it. (at least this is how i see it ATM.)

But if anyone wants to talk with you? Feel free!

 

[Monk]

Wow I assumed this thread had died, because it was locked. Either way, I noticed a few people arguing what the 2nd amendment actually means, and while I suspect people will always continue to argue over it, here is what an expert had to say:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm


I bolded the important bits.

Thanks!

So, if I were to draw a conclusion from that, it would be, the second amendment presents no restrictions on gun ownership while, at the same time, does not grant any specific freedom to be protected. It merely points out that the ability to form an armed militia, in protection of the state, shall not be prevented by any law. Am I reducing that correctly?

 

[Cydramech]

I put it short. You are a criminal in FBI no fly list...

I wish I made a bet on someone saying something like this.

You are probably the last person whom ANYONE ever going to ask about things like this, and sane man never going to take seriously your "wisdom" in this matters.
When you talking a criminal talking. When you talking, we listen a man who have no regard toward human life, law or whatever.

I don't have such low self-esteem to feel the need to be believed. Most people are not "law-abiding citizens" like you proclaim to be (and in fact, you are just as likely to be a criminal yourself if you live in the U.S. since there are so many laws on the books). It's a post-modern, Marxist invention that humans have a law-abiding nature. The anarchist advocacy rests on the basis that because all humans are necessarily NOT good, it is not wise to trust any human or group of humans with the power of being a central authority.

 

[Brimstone]

Thanks!

So, if I were to draw a conclusion from that, it would be, the second amendment presents no restrictions on gun ownership while, at the same time, does not grant any specific freedom to be protected. It merely points out that the ability to form an armed militia, in protection of the state, shall not be prevented by any law. Am I reducing that correctly?

Gun ownership is a God-given right as an American, whether you are part of a militia or not, basically.

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

 

[Monk]

Gun ownership is a God-given right as an American, whether you are part of a militia or not, basically.

Do you think the authors had the thought that guns would be markedly more lethal in the future?

One man and a musket or two couldn't carry out a massacre...you'd need a few men to do that, back then.

 

[Cydramech]

Yeah, This is the basic.

But the way i see, if the USA wants to change how weapons dealt with, first he must change the whole law, and self governing system otherwise as we talked about with monk Earlier? It's technically impossible, to push trough.

@Cydramech. I will be brief. Your problem is to see everybody, as an ill willed criminal. Sorry! But you are just beyond the point where we can humanly talk with each others, or reach each other. I see no point to continue this conversation, because the differences between us, is just too big, to bridge it. (at least this is how i see it ATM.)

But if anyone wants to talk with you? Feel free!

No, I do no't see humans as ill-willed criminal. I said it before: there is nothing wrong with a man that profits. It is YOUR view that depends on believing things are evil. In fact, it's irrelevant whether I am the one that views people as one thing or another. Why do you support government? No doubt because others like you, you believe society needs rules, that somehow someone somewhere doing something you believe to be wrong even when there is no victim needs to be punished for whatever lame arbitrary reason your brain can fart out. You are trusting a group of men who you even admit have the full capability of doing evil with the power of a central authority, with the expectation they won't do evil despite there being nothing to stop them. My view is that because mankind is NOT necessarily good, that because morality is a relative creature, you shouldn't be going around telling others what they may or may not do when someone's natural rights aren't even being violated.

 

[Brimstone]

Do you think the authors had the thought that guns would be markedly more lethal in the future?

I'd like to think that they might have had an idea that the technology would improve and become more efficient, just like any other technology we've seen throughout history. Otherwise, I honestly don't know, so I can't answer that.

 

[Cydramech]

Do you think the authors had the thought that guns would be markedly more lethal in the future?

One man and a musket or two couldn't carry out a massacre...you'd need a few men to do that, back then.

Gun Control: The Puckle Gun, Belton Flintlock, Ignorance, and Fear

Alexander Hamilton was the biggest supporter of a centralized authority in his hayday, had been ousted by Aaron Burr Jr. as being a traitor, and he managed to get a lot passed. Yet somehow, he never touched gun ownership. Actually, he was an adamant defender of the private citizen's right to own guns: "For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."