For or against?

Originally Posted by David4516

It is a bad thing. It's bad because kids that have no fucking idea what they're doing sometimes get their hands on guns. There'd be fewer "accidents" if kids were told how to properly handle a firearm...

This isn't quite the same argument as sex education, so don't try to make it out to be. Obviously it depends on age level, but a kid that knows how to use a gun, what a gun case is, how to undo a gun lock, how to safety off, load and fire, is going to be more danger to others. You know how there's that whole argument that kids are still emotionally developing into their late twenties? Well, I think adolescents with guns is just as bad an idea as trying to lower the drinking age to 18.

Most adolescent judgment is already impaired, so why tempt fate? It's an assumption that just because you can do something, you should. I for one would predict a severe increase in not only gun related violence (crimes of passion) but also a basic increase in criminality. Not by virtue of guns being violent implements, but because you're sanctioning the means of their use by people not sufficiently mature to see that they're put to good use.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Yeah, weapons are easily bought illegaly. My argument against this, is that if every joe sixpack didn't buy gun(s), then there would be a whole hell of a lot less made. A whole hell of a lot less stolen/lost/resold illegaly. Those illegaly obtained weapons have to come from somewhere, and they are only made because there is a legal demand for them.

Roger roger. Makes it a whole lot easier to trace/track down/incarcerate.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling

I like guns. I've had exposure and access to guns since I can remember. I got my first one when I was 8 (a good old 4-10 shotgun) and got my first pistol at 13. I've yet to kill anybody with my guns and nobody's killed me with them yet. I do like to go shooting on occasion, but i'm not a freak about it. I'd carry a pistol with me on long road trips and stuff just to be safe, but I've never driven around town playing Wyatt Earp.

No one is saying there aren't children who can handle a gun intelligently and with restraint. Hell, I've gone shooting myself, as young as 8. Enjoyed it. Would probably buy a gun if I ever had the desire to spend hard earned money so I could shoot recreationally. But how sure are you that your childhood is a representative sample of children everywhere?

Children can be taught by their parents to use guns safely, if the parents wish their children to learn how to use guns. But the parents that take the time to explain consequences probably won't outnumber the ones who stick the gun in a closet and hope that everything will turn out okay, and hope it will never see any use.

Originally Posted by David4516

Skexis, I think you have the wrong idea. I've said this already, but when I'm talking about "gun ed" I don't mean taking kids out the the range and showing them how to shoot...

I'm not trying to imply that guns make killers out of people. In fact, I specifically said that it's not the "guns' violent nature" that causes the violence. It's a matter of probability, of increasing the availability of their use.

But I guess I am a little hazy on the idea of "gun education." Exactly what do they teach you? What the safety is? What the barrel does? "Point away from face before opening"?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Rikimaru

Yes, Paris was successful since the government is still for the people to some degree.

The point that they are making is just so that the people and state have the option to fight or check the federal government. This gives a power to the state. It gives the means for the state the option to secede from the Union.

Everything does not go as smooth as that, protesting does not work all the time. The Confederate States protested at first but was not heard by the federal government so they tried and failed to secede.

However, there is still a chance that the federal government can have too much power over the state, and it can become oppressive. It is better that you are prepared for the worse as the saying goes.

In the event that there was some sort of uprising, do you think that soldiers everywhere, who conceivably see themselves as patriots, would all be hunky-dory with slaughtering their neighbors?

This is a more complex issue than a show of force. In terms of numbers, we have the army beat. But we're not mobilized, and we're certainly not equipped and trained to try to fight anyone, even if it is on our own ground. Hell, a single tear gas shell into your home and you'd be ready to call it quits.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Rikimaru

Union soldiers fought against their Confederate brothers and vice versa.

You should have more faith on war of attrition. They work sometimes.


Underdogs sometimes win if they think the cause is too noble.

Depends on what you are fighting for, I hope you do not quit.

So basically you're telling me "It happened 200 years ago, and it's a shoe-in today" and "Have faith, because good guys always win in the end."

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Civil war isn't the same thing as a civil uprising anyways, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there.

I mean, regardless of whether you have a gun or not, my point is that your ability to affect any change in the government (much less by force) is laughable. Most caretaking of the government is doen by watchdog groups and the media, since the government now (as opposed to 200 years ago) have to project a certain semblance of order if they don't want other countries trying to take advantage of civil disorder.

Should any civil uprising ever come about, I doubt very much that homeowner Bob and his 12-gauge will have any desire to meet even a street cop armed with riot gear.

Guns are fine. I'm not trying to pry them from your soon to be cold dead fingers. But the argument that you need guns to protect yourself from big brother is ludicrous.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Rikimaru

But, if there is 1 million Bob with a 12-gauge because the government is oppressing them, that is a force that is difficult to stop.

Okay, are you comfortable with the idea of practicality? Who's going to feed clothe and supply these one million angry homeowners? Who will lead them? Who will ensure they don't break and scatter at the first sight of a column of U.S. trained troops with a tank at their head?

Quote:

Again, these are not my arguments. I just quoted Mr. Lee, Mr. Madison, and the second amendment.

Yeah, that's the rub, isn't it? Your arguments are outdated.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It's not exactly the same situation, but when you're placed in a command-control situation, and presented with highly unusual circumstances, soldiers tend to put their faith in their commanding officers. The idea of dissenters is rendered null, as dissenters are branded as Commies, or Terrorists, or Traitors, and shot. Dissent has to be in the majority, which is never a guarantee.

I understand the concept you're trying to get across, but I think face to face gunning down of American citizens will cause a lot of soldiers to start questioning exactly why the government feels that level of violence is necessary. Call me an idealist, I guess.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

By what standard, exactly? Are Newtonian concepts of Gravity merely outdated because they were established a long time ago?

Because his interpretation of them remains grossly underdeveloped. It is hinging on the idea that technology has not changed.

The constitution is an expression of ideals. The idea that you can take back power from the government personally is very nice; it appeals to everyone's sense of individuality.

Putting this idea into action needs to consider a lot more than faith in your fellow man.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Well, the Bill doesn't explicitly mention the individualistic nature. In fact, a Militia would be a community of individuals.

Yeah, I wasn't trying to use the constitution as a source, just making a general comment on our desire for individual freedoms.

Quote:

Regardless, over a hundred million firearm owners is supposed to act as more of a deterrent than a legitimate threat to the establishment. It only becomes a threat when people are like-minded in will, and it'd take quite a bit to push them over that edge.

That's really what I want Riki to understand. Sure, it's always possible that you could form a people's army and contest government control. But how likely is it that they could create a self-sufficient rebellion using what they buy at wal-marts and gun catalogues?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by David4516

There are many examples of powerful, organized armys being defeated by untrained locals with guns. Two that come to mind very quickly are the amerian war for independance, and the veitnam war...

This is not the 1700's, and Bumfuck, suburbia does not exactly facilitate guerilla warfare.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Gumby

Also for those who are outside of the United States, what makes you think that the majority of Americans don't want to have the right to own guns? Don't you think that if there was a large enough movement to get ride of them that they would be gone?

Not really, no. I'm sure outcry would arise at the basic principle of altering the constitution, of the ideal of the amendment itself, not to mention lobbying and gun-toting legislators in high places.

Quote:

Any sensible American would see that getting ride of our rights is not a smart idea, as chances are you will never get those rights back.

Stricter gun control isn't the same thing as forbidding any citizen to own a gun, ever.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Gumby

Skexis, we have amended the constitution before. However the right to bear arms was added in the second amendment. Why amend something just to turn around and remove it?

I'm...not arguing for removing it. I'm saying even if there were a large enough movement that wanted to tighten gun laws (or get rid of guns altogether), it probably wouldn't get done, for the reasons I said.

Quote:

But the statistics don't really match what a lot of these anti-gun groups like to say.

Please...stop trying to win this by claiming that your statistics are better than their statistics.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.