FA+
Shop
I can respect a difference in opinion.
13 years ago
General
I have already typed up a few similar journals on this subject, and deleted them all. I really do not like to be overtly political on my FA. It's not fair to you that you should have to hear my opinions on matters outside of fursuits. I feel like I am here to show you the art i work on, make a few jokes, and just have a good time. That's the reason I am here.
And the last thing I want to do is tell you how to think.
So, submitted for your approval is a controversial gripe about a hot button issue.
Okay. So, no matter how you stand on gun control, I just have one topic I really want to clear up.
No, I am no crazed "gun nut". I am just sick, and tired of the willing obfuscation by the media of our rights.
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and sporting. They are not even mentioned in the bill of rights. Most media outlets that have crammed their way onto my google homepage, and on my phone have really kept repeating the same straw man argument again, and again, and again. After I had been called a crazy person by the talking heads on the screen one too many times I just needed to say that you do not need a 30 round clip to take down a deer. That's true, but it also stacks the deck by presupposing that James Madison was concerned about your right to shoot clay. Why would they want to preserve a sport that didn't exist yet? Or, why would they give people permission to hunt in the 1800th century? PETA was not really very active 200 years ago. James Madison was just in a war that ousted the oppressive rule of a king. I am sorry, but the bill of rights is pretty clear on the ability for citizens to have the same firepower as the standing armies around the globe. Had the standing army of King George been armed with AR 15s, well, I am sure they would have been happy to add that in the second amendment for you.
Here are a few sentiments at the time the document was written.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
-Noah Webste
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
These are the very men who gave us our country. For better or worse, this is what they believed,
So, if you are for gun control. I can respect that. The only thing I can really say is, if you want to push to remove the second amendment , then do just that. Call a spade a spade. Don't tell me if we ban weapons that are already lesser than our standing military's weapons, that the second amendment is being upheld. Granted I don't think you should be able to have an atomic weapon. But I don't think that our government, or any government should ether. That's another story.
In closing, I respect your thoughts on the issue. You do not have to agree with the founding fathers. The first amendment is there specifically so you can disagree with me. If you look I really am just perturbed over the idea that preserving my right to shoot ducks is somehow more important than defending our rights to liberty as a people.
And the last thing I want to do is tell you how to think.
So, submitted for your approval is a controversial gripe about a hot button issue.
Okay. So, no matter how you stand on gun control, I just have one topic I really want to clear up.
No, I am no crazed "gun nut". I am just sick, and tired of the willing obfuscation by the media of our rights.
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and sporting. They are not even mentioned in the bill of rights. Most media outlets that have crammed their way onto my google homepage, and on my phone have really kept repeating the same straw man argument again, and again, and again. After I had been called a crazy person by the talking heads on the screen one too many times I just needed to say that you do not need a 30 round clip to take down a deer. That's true, but it also stacks the deck by presupposing that James Madison was concerned about your right to shoot clay. Why would they want to preserve a sport that didn't exist yet? Or, why would they give people permission to hunt in the 1800th century? PETA was not really very active 200 years ago. James Madison was just in a war that ousted the oppressive rule of a king. I am sorry, but the bill of rights is pretty clear on the ability for citizens to have the same firepower as the standing armies around the globe. Had the standing army of King George been armed with AR 15s, well, I am sure they would have been happy to add that in the second amendment for you.
Here are a few sentiments at the time the document was written.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
-Noah Webste
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
-Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
These are the very men who gave us our country. For better or worse, this is what they believed,
So, if you are for gun control. I can respect that. The only thing I can really say is, if you want to push to remove the second amendment , then do just that. Call a spade a spade. Don't tell me if we ban weapons that are already lesser than our standing military's weapons, that the second amendment is being upheld. Granted I don't think you should be able to have an atomic weapon. But I don't think that our government, or any government should ether. That's another story.
In closing, I respect your thoughts on the issue. You do not have to agree with the founding fathers. The first amendment is there specifically so you can disagree with me. If you look I really am just perturbed over the idea that preserving my right to shoot ducks is somehow more important than defending our rights to liberty as a people.
Also, damn fine fursuits, sir!
I figured I should weigh in eventually. I hate doing it, but somebody had to point this out.
I just absolutely refuse to be branded a criminal or miscreant because of the actions of an EXTREME minority. A historical minority in fact, if you consider how many more people have guns now than even just a few years before..
**I don't mean to step on any toes, just contributing to a discussion**
So I think it's the government's job to solve the initial issues at hand. Instead of having 99% of the population starving to death and becoming homeless, how about we spread the wealth a bit.. If people have what they need there's a lot less of a chance they'll have to fight to get it.
Also, fucking US government, STOP BEING IN WARS! It's such a stupid load of b.s.
The US has crazy people who go into schools and try to harm kids. China has crazy people who go into schools and try to harm kids. In the US, they have guns, and in the last major incident over 20 people were killed. In China they do not have access to guns and so use knives, and while people have still been killed the numbers are generally much lower, in the last major incident 23 people were stabbed but they all survived.
Just sayin'.
In any case, 2/3 of gun related deaths are suicides anyway. That says more about the mental health social support systems than anything
http://www.motherjones.com/politics.....ones-full-data
http://www.motherjones.com/politics.....-shootings-map
I wanted to get back to you with a witty, well written remark about something.. but I am tired right now. how about we take a rain check until after I sleep in, and get some coffee? I to often am around agreeable parties, and I think we should chat outside of this journal sometime. For now, I am going to sleep in a bit on my day off.
thanks fo your input!
While tragedies happen, they are few and far between.
Bear in mind that gun related suicides are included in our gun 'violence' statistics, which greatly skews the numbers.
I am not understanding how gun control is supposed to be such a civilized concept, when in the same government the idea of due process is thrown out the window the very second you are labeled a terrorist.
This entire issue is like a 1,000 page math problem that people are trying to solve in 10 seconds. Knee-jerk legislation only ever hurts our liberties.
The government isn't the best group of people ever, and I'd say yes it is a proper thing for the people to be able to take by force the country back if need be.. And defend themselves.. But at the same time I think it should be a little more difficult to buy them... I don't like the idea of going to the states where pretty much everyone and their dog is armed to the teeth. It's really unsettling considering the vast majority of people are just a bit crazy and who knows when one of them might just lose it.. O.o;
The ATF had some trouble with what you recommend not too long ago. See the plan was to sell assault rifles, no questions asked, to Mexican drug cartels to.. then they.. sell guns to Mexican drug cartels?
Fast and Furious.
this is just one quick example of the Blatant hypocritical nature of some branches of the government. They sold illegal guns directly to the bad guys. Guns you are not allowed to own as a citizen. We are lucky they got caught, sure. but you don't want to know how many of those banned weapons are still in the hands of those bad people. Would you want the same government to tell you that you can't have a specific gun to protect yourself, knowing full well that they where knowingly selling directly to criminals..
It sucks.. but we have to remember that guns already exist. There are plenty of gun laws out there. The issue is, you don't need to follow the law now to be able to get one. Our own government to some extent put those very weapons there in the first plane. At least in that instance.. So, I will leave it up to you how you would want to protect yourself.
But hey go read my comment above. @v@;;
We go to a free range up in the National forest. There are no police there to moderate the place. I think we can safely assume that all the people there are armed. there was a guy out on the range that was practicing some unsafe shooting. Then the whole of the self moderated people took the time to stop that neglectful owner by politely informing him exactly what to do. Let's just say with 30 armed people staring at you.. you listen pretty well.
I think crazy people don't really need a gun to harm you. Take the Oklahoma City bombing for example. Not a single gun used. You can't blame a dog for being rabid. And you can't take out the teeth of every dog in fear of a bite.
I'm well aware that not everyone with a gun is crazy but still. Having it so easy to acquire(though I don't know the process because I'm Canadian and we have nothing like it here) is just unsettling to me.
I think it's a false assumption that the majority of people who carry guns would use them in a heartbeat. One of the recent mall shooting had a gentleman draw his gun to defend the other shoppers form the crazed gunman. He, sadly held his fire in fear of breaking the law. Even in that extreme of a situation, he held his fire. we often hear about a gun toting population always being on the brink of some Wild West shootout. In reality, this seldom happens in even the most obvious situations.
Lol, we people from the US must look so crazy to Canadians sometimes.. But, we have very different history that brought us to very different places. Rest assured, the closest thing to a totally unarmed culture, is a full armed culture.
As the saying goes.
"God created man, Samuel Colt made him equal. "
guns on the street do exist with, or without the gunshow. So, by regulating law abiding citizens we are only stripping the rights of law abiding citizens.
It's feel good legislature, that looks good on paper, but really is not going to stop somebody who is hell bent one way or the other.
Say what you want about criminals, they are not as lazy, or un-creative as you might think.
The whole "ease of buying" argument is somewhat misinformed, and misplaced. Criminals, by their very nature do not follow the law. So, breaking a law to break another law is not even unexpected. Closing "loopholes" only affects people who follow the law anyway.
You just have to watch out for criminals but criminals will get guns one way or another so gun control laws won't do anything to stop them getting what they want..
I will say, once the government hands in it's Semi-autos (and I assume that is what you mean, because we cannot buy fully automatic guns) i will consider it. Our government has too poor of a track record recently to trust.
Is our situation idea? No.
But that's the point. Guns, sadly, already exist. we cannot simply "pull the plug" on our rights of protection.
good Americans would hand in their guns, if asked. But, criminals would not. We can argue about how we got to this situation, but it dose not change the status quot. A stupid amount of untraceable guns already exist. We are only left with a few choices. Trust a government to protect us, That as recently as last year was caught red handed selling guns to Mexican drug cartels. Or, make sure we are equally armed.
I know it is scary, trust me. but I refuse to live in fear. That's no way to live. Hoping a police man will arrive in time.
That is the reason we have the Second amendment here in the states. Our founders wanted to make sure that we had the same firepower as anyone who attempted to take our liberties . That is why we have military style rifles for sale. To make sure that if our own army tried to oppress us, we could at least have a chance. not to mention in an emergency, like a hurricane. Without electric power, cities erupt into looting, robbery, and arson within days. If even your good government is on it's way, you could be stranded for days in a regional martial law situation. If you had to defend yourself from roving mobs of rioting people, and AR 15 dose not look like such a bad thing. I have personally lived through major hurricanes here and Florida. It's not as far fetched as you might think.
Don't get me wrong. I don't think everyone should be able to have a gun. But crazy dose not need a gun to harm people. Crazy just needs to be creative.
AR 15s are never really even used in violent crimes. They are a mid-range carbine not really designed for close quarters. If we really wanted to ban the guns most associated with violent crimes, we would need to ban handguns first. they hide in a pocket.
Granted, I can't expect you to 100% get all of these issues. but we have a last ditch effort in place in our Bill of Rights to insure that no matter what, we are able to live as free people. I know it comes at a cost. But nobody asked us if we wanted the military to keep inventing new weapons. we just want to make sure we are not left undefended form ourselves.
The good news is, at least in Canada this is not a central topic. I am afraid your neighbors to the South have some issues we need to sort out.
the second amendment is the american people's "ace up the sleeve" if our government, or anyone else tries to "stack the deck" against us.
It's a tool we have, that we do everything in our power not to use.
Dusque_Ravelle made the point it's about lost rights and that's damn right. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." ~ Thomas Jefferson
To me this is the biggest joke of them all.
We're all slaves to the rich. If you refuse to work in this farm, you don't get a home or food. You die.
There is no freedom, only capitalism, and we're all just cattle.
So have a gun or two, at least it'll make you feel safer..
Again, I can respect a difference in opinion, but I hate the idea of living in a society where the idea of taking another human life is seen as a perfectly normal and viable response to something as mundane as a burglary. Or where I should expect a burglar to be armed and have to react with deadly force instead of letting him take my stuff and claiming back on the insurance. I like living in a place where killing is not seen as an appropriate answer to all but the most extreme of circumstances.
http://www.timesonline.com/news/pol.....397b6fbca.html
Only a matter of time before that'll happen to someone dressed in a fursuit.
I know in KY(where I live) getting a gun is just a matter of going to a yard sale or a flea market and buying it. No license, no background checks, nothing.
And that makes me pretty uncomfortable?? If you're trained, have a sound background, and understand how to use a sub machine gun safely, by all means buy one.
I would mostly like to see more gun education? I'm not sure how you'd crack down on yard sales or anything. I am no expert on the subject, I'm just stating my opinion, not really up to arguing or anything as this isn't a hot button issue for me. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.
I really, really favor more education. Guns are dangerous. You need a licence to drive a car. Why not have a licence that says you know how to handle a gun? Well, i guess tht is opening Pandora's box.. but I do like the idea of learning.
I have a best friend who is a certified gun smith and instructor on gun usage and safety. He taught me how to shoot handguns and wow it's pretty complicated? Just holding it wrong can really screw up your hand, it would be SO easy to misuse the weapon and hurt some one unintentionally. It's really sad since I grew up in rural KY and heard stories of classmates dying from playing with a parents gun.
All I really want is background checks and thorough education. People seem to think guns are toys or something. Totally scary!!
I would like to rand someday. I liked his dad, but I really am not sold on Rand yet. he is a little too close to the very things his own father warned us to avoid. Time will tel what kind of a leader he is. Sometime real fucking dicks make decent senators. go figure..
Oddly enough the NRA has pushed for better background checks for years now.
But yeah, it's a deadly weapon. the founding fathers also mentioned that is is a really good idea to be familiar with your arms. the actually like the idea so much, they pretty much implied in the law books that it was our duty to be educated on arms. So, I think, if anything it is within the intent of our founding fathers.
In terms of protection from tyranny, no private individual or non government group in the US has the right to bear tanks, drones and cruise missiles, so any uprising would be asymmetrical to the point of being nearly worthless; as we have seen with foreign wars with asymmetrical weaponary, what this leads to is civilian deaths on an unbelievable scale. In Iraq or Vietnam a long and painful guerilla insurgency can lead to the foreign power giving up and going home. At home? That is simply not going to happen.
This is a rather shaky ground, because the founding fathers had some pretty unpleasant beliefs by modern standards. Like those peaky slave owners. Sure most of them SAID slavery was wrong and there are some very pretty quotes to that effect, but they still did very little to actually actively push for it's abolition in their lifetime; it was nearly 100 years between the declaration of independence and the emancipation proclamation. Also, voting was tied to property ownership for a bloody long time, something completely unconscionable today, and women did not get full suffrage until 1920!
Obviously I'm not saying believers in the second amendment are racist or sexist anything like that, but it's an illustration of the danger of holding up "the founding fathers" as dispensers of some kind of ineffable and eternal truth, because the world of 1776 was a very unpleasant and unfair place to live if you were black, female or poor.
Better surely look at each right and responsibility as it stands TODAY and relates to our modern values and desires.
Obviously, we have to understand the original intent of an amendment before we decide it's modern context. My whole argument in itself was out of frustration of the media constantly spewing a straw man argument that presented the 2nd amendment as a glorified hunting provision. You say that enough, people start to believe it. If we have a full understanding of the initial intent of the 2nd amendment, then by all means, lets see what it means to the modern world.
As you can tell, I really am not scared of making an argument for my case. I simply think that the media is not playing fair, and is pushing an agenda to paint gun owners as ether gun loving freaks teetering on the edge of insurrection, or the sportsman who just wants to shoot clay.
We also have to understand the cultural implications at the time. Abraham Lincoln, in his earlier carer was for the packing up the blacks, and sending them back to Africa. Is that racist? Well, at the time it was one of the mainstream ideas when it came to freeing blacks. To us, this sounds abhorrent, but at the time, it was very modern thinking on the issue.
Woman's suffrage was something that Anne Oakley was all about. she was one of the biggest pushers for it. She was pretty clear about equal rights for women, and gun ownership.
A little off topic, but have you ever read Anne Oakley's letter to William McKinley regarding the Spanish-American war? it' pretty good. "offering the government the services of a company of 50 'lady sharpshooters' who would provide their own arms and ammunition should the U.S. go to war with Spain."
Most of our very first gun control laws in the south where aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of black people.
We don't pick on the other amendments as much as the second. Using the Founding fathers "didn't give rights to everyone" argument is not really used on the other amendments, just the second. Imagine how this argument would go over first amendment rights. you even took the time to clarify that was not your intent. I have simply seen that done.
The forefathers themselves put down rather radical thinking for the day. Did it have every vestige of civil liberty for every human being in America at the time, no it did not. however, at the time that it was written, it was pretty forward thinking, and those ideas laid down allowed us to become forward thinking nation. Even if it took a little while.
I do have one interesting question for you. Do you think your education in the UK regarding the American revolutionary war is written in a different context than how that war is written in the states?
I think the reason the second amendment is picked on more than the others is fairly simple: because of the number of gun deaths in the US compared with pretty much any other developed country. The right to bear arms comes with downsides in a more obvious way than just about any other amendment or article in the constitution.
To be honest, I think the question needs to be framed more broadly and without reference to the constitution or the past by either side. Are the people of a nation where guns are freely available better off than the people of a nation where gun ownership is tightly restricted? Appeals to tradition (or attacks on it, as I was doing) are a distraction from this simple question.
On the first amendment, most of Europe does not have absolute free speech. I personally think UK law swings too far in the restriction of speech (our crazy libel laws are an embarrassment), but I really like the bits where hate speech and incitement are offences. So I don't think ANY law should be sacrosanct just because that's how it's been done for the last 250 years, everything should be reassessed as society changes. That's why the constitution is allowed to BE amended, and why some amendments repeal earlier ones (18 and 21 specifically).
I did like that you pointed out the asymmetrical force of our own military. I have pointed that out often in the past. True, I was making another point by doing that. Still, I think it demonstrates your well thought out position on the matter.
I am trying not to be too "if by whisky" here. As it's clear we do not agree 100% on how we would like to be treated by our respective governments. I guess I am just happy that you are bringing points to the table that we do not often see in the dumb downed version of reality we are often presented in the media.
I'm just sick and tired of this drama about it. I'm sick of the govt pushing walking the fine line where the constitution and bill of rights are concerned.
In all honesty when It comes to the main incidents that spurred these movements towards gun control, I see more of an issue in the attention to procedures and protocol concerning mental health, not guns. Just my take.
Also, it's been proven that if you take guns away from the citizens, violent crime with guns goes up. Why? Well guess who still has the guns lol. And the people that have the guns know that well doing citizens don't and it causes problems. No I honestly can cite the source for my info at the moment. But it's a pretty logical conclusion even without backup.
We do live in a different society these days and rules that flew in the back when have a hard time finding context now, but it's all interpretative and im just pretty done with the shady bs.
P.S.
No, you don't need a 30 round clip to kill a deer. Haha that made me giggle.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/8975/a.....mes-not-lower/
http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/01.....united-states/
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/p.....ime-in-the-us/
Democide - the killing of citizens by their own government:
http://democraticpeace.wordpress.co.....uses-of-death/
To defend yourself, you don't need fifty rifles in your basement, you don't need belt-fed machine guns or whatever crazy stuff some of the aforementioned "gun nuts" want covered under their 2nd amendment. Keep revolvers or semi-auto handguns legal as much as you want. That's sufficient to defend yourself against burglars, intruders or whatever.. but automatics, assault rifles etc should be restricted to use by properly trained professionals. And by "trained professionals" I do not mean "anyone who passed a 30min test or is close friend to the shooting range administrator".
And especially, you absolutely must not be allowed to let that stuff lie around in your house where kids can get at them, and you must not be allowed to keep those things if you have a proven record of mental illness.
Beautifully worded journal.
You prove the difference between someone who learns and understands history, as compared to those who react on emotion and propaganda; or more frighteningly, those who believe the government is always looking out for our best interests.
http://conservativevideos.com/2013/.....2nd-amendment/
Plenty of non third world countries don't have the second amendment.
They seem to be doing well enough.
America seems to be doing disgustingly poorly.
Humans are like infants.
They'll find away to play with the things that are easy to obtain.
Not all of them will be respectful.
The statistics alone speak for themselves.
You don't need such things.
It's only when majority of america agrees that they don't need guns will it be an indication that they are responsible enough to have access to them; but by that point there would be no need to give them guns anyway. Because they would have the understanding that a lot more people already have.
Plenty of those non third world nations do not equal the population, or land mass that The united states has. That also goes for our social, and economic factors as well. you can't simply scale up a system of government, and hope it will work in a larger context. It dose not work that way.
The per capita violent gun crime rate in the United States is ranked 4th in the world behind Thailand, South Africa, and Columbia. They all have dissimilar regulations on firearms than each other, but they're violent gun crime rate is far higher than in the United States, and the violent gun crime rate in the United States is far higher than the vast majority of other 1st world countries that all have highly variable regulations levels on firearms. This should also imply something interesting about violent gun crime.
Michael Moore might not be the most respected person by the gun rights lobby, but he did have a very good question to ask. What's so different about Americans?
I would hypothesize that for whatever reason, America seems to be really great at out manufacturing crazy people than the rest of the civilized world.
We have a fundamentally different culture that has to be taken into account. Not to mention overall land mass, illegal weapon proliferation, gang activity, economic factors, and rural communities that are often not factored into simple statistical date. The idea of simply taking a program from a much smaller nation, and scaling it up dose not really make any practical sense.
But that is another debate.
My initial point to this was simple. The second amendment is pretty clear on our right to bear arms. It has nothing to do with hunting, or sporting. I certainly don't mind people disagreeing with the bill of rights. Because, that is the very first right it states. however, I feel if you wish to impose gun control laws, you are trampling on the bill of rights. So, my argument simply states. If you do not agree with the Second Amendment, simply go through the proper steps to repeal it. Don't tell me that the ability to hunt will be upheld, you just want to ban some weapons that the US government gets to have. It is unconstitutional, and you have to go through the proper channels to follow our most basic, and fundamental laws.
democracy only works for you if you are in the majority. it's like 2 wolves and a sheep taking votes on what to have for dinner.
Do you know how many posts I've seen of Americans in favor of some how protecting the second amendment. as opposed to those in favor of slimming it down or even out right getting rid of it)
Just the fact that America still has the right to carry arms proves to me that a majority have not been able to over come those that are in favor of guns/etc. If the case were that most people felt the opposite of what I feel I believe; there would be evidence in that favor.
There is not.
Instead there are just charts.
Charts of how many Americans have died by gun related incidents.
If you want to see those statistics it's not hard to find them.
I wont try to justify my opinion by posting a whole bunch of links that you could easily ignore.
The evidence is just a few clicks and keys away.
If you aren't willing to look into the studies other countries have listed by comparison; then whatever.
That only further shows the lack of self awareness you may or may not have for the circumstances.
If you would like to actually sit down and talk to me.. cool. I will hear you out. But don't come on here claiming that I am some kind of moron, and get upset when I respond in kind to your initial outburst. You set the tone for our correspondence, not me.
Would you like to actually talk to me as a peer, or do you want to go back to barking our respective platitudes at each other? For the record, I prefer the former.
I'm upset about other things.
The problem with me is that when I'm not in a good mood I am more likely to speak up.
It's like being drunk. Makes me chatty.
I should have just gotten my business done on here, and avoided looking at anything else.
Me, if I skip a meal and I have lower blood sugar, it's like I am a completely different person.
I'll stay in Canada where I feel safer walking the streets where there's way less gun crime.
Also, my thing is. If the government, right now, wanted to attack you, they'd do it no matter how many people in a single state had guns, no matter what kind of guns they had. They'd win, too, the government, that is, because if you spend over half of the fiscal budget on military (only god knows why), they're gonna kick your farm grown militia no problem. They got helicopters, swat teams, bombs, biological warfare, etc. Your automatic rifle don't mean shit if they truly wanted to attack the People. It's like, when natives got guns and had basically the same guns as the Federal army, guess who won? The Federals who had more money, more factories, and biological warfare on their side (Oh, here's a blanket, btw it's covered with smallpox, I hope that's okay). It had nothing to do with one being more "primitive" than the other, it had to do with who had the power.
And who has the power in the United States? Welp, I think that's obvious. I don't believe government is a super secret scary dragon who hides in the closet ready to kill the entire country just for funsies. That would destroy capitalism as a system, so they'd never do that. It would break the system entirely. Yet, the government is a super secret scary dragon who hides in the closet to groups they don't like and those are minorities. And minorities, for the most part, support gun control (not BANNING guns, but sensible stuff like in Canada, Australia, France, pretty much every '1st world' country)....I wonder why. Hrmmmm... :|a
I ask because, aside from your snarky delivery, you have made some points, and I would be happy to sit down and argue the finer points of the debate with you.
If you want to keep it rhetorical, that's cool. I won't delete it, or anything.
I just have been typing quite a bit, and I would rather reserve an argument to somebody who would like my input.
If you don't live in the US, I don't want to hear how your country works. I can poke holes in how shitty your country is, too.
If you don't vote, I don't want to hear your opinion, because you probably don't keep abreast of the current US political state. It is a terrifying world we live in, and just because you can buy tins of tuna or mcdonalds hamburgers doesn't mean that this ISNT turning into a fucking orwellian nightmare.
If you don't own guns, I don't care, you're welcome to your opinion and you can do whatever you want.
If you do own guns, I also don't care. I have several incredibly illegal weapons at my disposal that haven't yet been claimed by the police boogeyman.
I live outside DC, DC had record gun crime until they passed legalisation of open and concealed carry. Gun crime dropped by 85%.
Tragedies happen, it sucks that people die. I will not give up my guns because people die. Many MORE people died to ensure I could have these guns. If I had to shoot myself in the mouth to ensure that another generation could own guns, I would fucking do it. Because freedom > all your feel good bullshit.
Get the fuck over it.
I just want people to come out and say, "strip the second amendment". Not talk about gun control. You can't have gun control , and a second amendment. Call a spade a spade.
I just want to people to be clear on their intentions here. Stop trying to pass of the suspension of civil liberties as a "reasonable compromise". That's a bunch of bullshit.
If you want to take our guns, fine. Just let me know where you stand. Then see how that goes over.
Look at how our first amendment rights were taken away. No talk of stripping the first amendment whatsoever.
It never comes straight on, it always comes in bright, red white and blue with flags flying and fireworks going off, to the sound of thunderous applause. PATRIOT ACT. Come on.
Just between you me and the internet, I think the whole school shooting was staged for the sake of furthering the brady campaign. Those kids weren't in the ground and they started using them as a rally point to further their agenda? Despicable.
I live outside of Orlando, in Casselberry.
I was born in Winterpark.
Florida is one of those odd places that can change drastically just by going south or north. In Miami, it;s like a whole other country compared to here in Orlando area.
Orlando is a cool place, I used to have family there.
What it all comes down to in my own opinion is schools need to have armed guards, yes I know some people dislike this idea but if there was a arms guard at that school none of this would have happened. Just my opinion on the matter I guess, but thank you for posting this journal, I enjoyed reading it and through the comment discussions.
finally -_-
I bow to you for understanding the real issues at hand and ignoring the cries of both the media and the people that follow leaders without using their own brains to decide what's right or wrong and what's true or not.
I WILL be linking to this journal when someone wearing a mind-control helmet opens their mouth in my direction but actually WANTS to understand something.
Plus, automatic weapons are expensive. Most of the people who have them are going to be white, well off, and often very prone to racism and other bigotry. I don't say this to shame gun owners; it's simply true. Last year, a mosque was firebombed, someone shot up a Sikh temple thinking they were muslims, and violent crimes against minorities were at least in recent years on the rise: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor.....roups-say.html
Until our society is a more even playing ground, it makes me uneasy to have just anyone toting around guns without any required background check, huge magazines, and not even the need to pull the trigger twice to fire off more than a single bullet.
I don't want to do away with guns, nor do I want to do away with the second amendment, but it does specify that a "well-regulated militia" has a right to these weapons, not every single schmuck who wants to get one because he thinks it's cool. "Well-regulated" implies that there should be limits on gun ownership. I don't pretend to know all the answers about what those regulations should be ... but giving your average Joe a weapon designed for military use ... which we actually misuse often, resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians by the thousands ... it just doesn't seem like the best idea.
We had something like 30,000 gun deaths in the US last year. Syria saw 40,000 people die in warfare (gun deaths, bomb deaths, etc) in the same year. Given, they are a lot smaller, population-wise, and the population density is much less ... but 30,000 people is a lot. There has literally been a school or public shooting almost every, single day since Sandy Hook, and to blame only violence in the media or mental illness is ridiculous. People shoot people with guns because that's what they have, and that's what's available and that's what they were designed to do.
Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
source: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/conte.....60/10/929.full
Additionally, an abused woman is six times more likely to be murdered by the gun in her home than to defend herself with it against her attacker. (source: http://www.jhsph.edu/sebin/s/z/IPV_firearms2.pdf ) The dangers of owning a gun, statistically, far outweigh the supposed benefits. Add to this the fact that many (I won't say most but at least many) gun owners do not properly store their weapons or--even if they do--give the combination to the safe to family members who might not be the best people to have that information.
I didn't mean to post a wall of text, and I hope nothing I've said comes off as rude. I just couldn't resist responding because it's something that's been on my mind for a while, and the recent amount of shootings and violence have really brought it to the forefront of people's political discussions. Hope you don't mind the longass post.
Still, though, it would be nice to see an increase in educated gun owners and a decrease in idiots who think it's cool to shoot their families, their classmates or children.
No, they didn't write it with shooting clay in mind, nor did they write it in anticipation of advanced weapon technology and the gargantuan disparity between what firearms private citizens have reasonable access to and what the military is in possession of. There is no force that any private militia has that has a snowball's chance in hell of fending of an attack by our own government if the government had the inclination and the reason to do so.
But knowing that the government has that kind of force at its disposal doesn't make me more afraid of it at all. Motivation is the number one factor in this case.
I have many times used the asymmetrical balance of raw firepower in an argument to further illustrate my own point regarding the erosion of our civil liberties. It stands as a fact that we would not stand a chance with willing troops of our own military.. or would we. Case in point.. Afghanistan, where pockets of resistance have been a rather pesky annoyance to our military. I could go on.. but you and I have to sleep at sometime. Not to mention the fact the we also house the standing army in our own country. We feed, clothe, and furnish them with every thing they need to continue a sustained effort. Morale also is something that works towards tipping the balance. It's hard to believe that every standing troop would use the awesome firepower at their fingertips on his or her own soil. It would be a mess. A rather preventable mess at that.
And, to further my point.. many of them did write about possessing equal firepower, regardless of the magnitude. this is often something that is overlooked, but was covered by the very men responsible on signing the Bill of rights into existence. Perhaps we should ask ourselves if we really should have the weapons at the top tier of destruction at all. Government, or otherwise. It's a good argument for nuclear style weapons, all the way down to depleted uranium used in the armor piercing shells. I will hand in my AR 15, when they hand in D.U. It's pipedreams.. yes.. but if we want to talk about removing weapons for public safety, I think it's fair to mention. Especially if we want to compromise.
I am glad to hear you do not fear your government. But it is hardly of consequence in the matter. As lack of fear dose not make something less dangerous, it just simply means you are not afraid of it.
Anyway, we live far too close to further exacerbate our carpal tunnel self inflicted injuries by the mini novels we could type. If you go to Marc and Matt's Elliot's after party, we can have a intoxicated version of this conversation, and really talk in circles!