What's new
By:

5 year old kills 2 year old sister... with a birthday present.

One Brow said:
Do you have any evidence that more guns means a dictatorship is less likely? Dictatorships seem to spring up, or not, regardless of the levels of guns in the population.
Click to expand...

Regardless, protection from dictatorships was the reason for the 2nd Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights. I'm not saying it's effective or ineffective, but it may be a contributing factor to our 237 years without devolving into something dictatorial. What I am wondering though is what is the solution to the problem that doesn't violate the constitutional intent?
 
scootsy said:
Regardless, protection from dictatorships was the reason for the 2nd Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights. I'm not saying it's effective or ineffective, but it may be a contributing factor to our 237 years without devolving into something dictatorial. What I am wondering though is what is the solution to the problem that doesn't violate the constitutional intent?
Click to expand...

England hasn't devolved into something dictatorial, despite strict gun control for decades. Dictatorships sprang up in France even with well-armed populaces. I don't see a relationship.
 
One Brow said:
What would the cause of the ineffectiveness be? Or, are you uninterested in the why, as long as you can support your point?
Click to expand...

I think it is ineffective with stopping gun violence. For example the background checks that they were voting on would not have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

Yes guns are more effecient at killing than knives. Does not mean that knives are not deadly.
 
scootsy said:
You have no idea what my point is, don't be a douche. All I was asking for is what you guys thought the solution to the problem should be.
Click to expand...

My reply was to Stoked, not you.

I don't think there is a single problem, and certainly don't claim to have the best solution to any problem.
 
One Brow said:
England hasn't devolved into something dictatorial, despite strict gun control for decades. Dictatorships sprang up in France even with well-armed populaces. I don't see a relationship.
Click to expand...

Then run an experiment. You live a life free from gun ownership and I will live a life of gun ownership. Then right before we die we can compare notes.
 
Stoked said:
I think it is ineffective with stopping gun violence. For example the background checks that they were voting on would not have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting.

Yes guns are more effecient at killing than knives. Does not mean that knives are not deadly.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, background checks could have made a difference in Aurora, IIRC. I agree limited measures will only have limited effectiveness.
 
Stoked said:
Then run an experiment. You live a life free from gun ownership and I will live a life of gun ownership. Then right before we die we can compare notes.
Click to expand...

You mean, one of us will be in a more dictatorial country than the other? :)
 
One Brow said:
On the other hand, background checks could have made a difference in Aurora, IIRC. I agree limited measures will only have limited effectiveness.
Click to expand...

To truly stop gun violence then they will need to remove guns from the populace. That is a non starter as it violates my consitutional rights and would be absolutely disasterous for America.
 
One Brow said:
You mean, one of us will be in a more dictatorial country than the other? :)
Click to expand...

You never know. Maybe the Mormons will rise up, the Indians will take back "their" land or something. Hell in 20 years we could all be speaking Swahili, Chinese or French for all we know.
 
scootsy said:
Just curious, what is the solution? Stricter gun control laws, or taking the right to bear arms away altogether? Wasn't the reason we were given the right a form of protection against a standing army? Haven't a hundred or so countries existed under military dictatorships in the last 100 years and this is America's protection against that? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

It was a form of protection against other people with guns (criminals) or superior numbers(like when the KKK comes to lynch you), or people who could overpower you physically (woman protecting herself against violence), not just a standing army.
 
AKMVP said:
Just talking, not spreading anything. Trying to understand why. And maybe one day I will live there who knows? I loved Spokane BTW, looks like nice place to retire. Montana is great too:).
Click to expand...

You and Stockton could be two old geezurs rocking on the front porch and talking about the good old Sloan days. lolz.
 
Last edited:
PearlWatson said:
It was a form of protection against other people with guns (criminals) or superior numbers(like when the KKK comes to lynch you), or people who could overpower you physically (woman protecting herself against violence), not just a standing army.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's not what Madison was thinking about when he wrote them...
 
Remember this, before the Revolution War the British were trying to take away the colonies weapons. This is what basically started the war. The point is government needs to keep weapons out of the crazies hands as best they can. But citizens should always have to the right to adequately defend themselves, from bad guys and the government.
 
AKMVP said:
Taking away citizens freedom to have guns works just fine in Japan.
Click to expand...

And North Korea!

You keep going to the Japan example, but you could have scarcely picked a worse country for comparison.

It is one thing to keep guns out of the hands of the citizenry, it is another completely to disarm a country that already has 300,000,000 non-military guns in circulation. There is no practical or safe way to effectively take guns out of the equation. Never mind the fact that it would be blatantly unconstitutional.

So, what are you left with? Solving the real problem - people. Nah, too hard. We can't offend anyone...
 
One Brow said:
Do you think that when people say gun reduces the murder rate, that means the only significant factor is the level of gun control? If not, why would such a list be meaningful?
Click to expand...

When I hear people say "the US has much more gun related crime than countries with gun control" I just expect to see something corroborating that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top