2nd amendment

[capn-g]

No, this is not another gun control thread.

In my quest to gain better insight into my neigbors to the south, I've asked about guns and gun control many times, spoken to different people, heard and read radically divergent viewpoints and arrived at a fairly solid understanding in terms of why things are the way they are. One thing however still bugs me, so I ask this out of combination of sheer ignorance and curisosity:

I'm told that the primary function of the 2nd amendment is to allow the US citizenry to rise up and band together should the government turn tyrannical and need to be overthrown. Like communism, it's sounds great as a theory but I wonder, would it work in practice?

Consider: By and large, it's right-wing americans that own guns and support their use in society (note I did NOT say ALL). Given that the right wing currently controls all three branches of government, would it even be noticed if they turn slightly tyrannical? I suppose it depends on your definition of "tyranny". And no, I'm not saying they ARE tyrannical, so all you uber-rightwingers can just wipe the froth from your chins. This is all theoretical, so let's keep it civil.

Back to the point, I postulate that the government would simply declare those speaking against it as traitors. Since the right supports the government (by virtue of the fact they elected it) and already has most of the guns, those opposed to the tyrants would be both out gunned and out manned, since the government would not only have the party faithful but the entirety of the army at it's disposal to quell rebellion.

Say even further that the government becomes openly tyrannical and all citizens unite in common cause. Could they even concievably take on the US government? Considering they would (in theory) still have control of the army and all other military resources, even the most powerful firearms citizens would have access to would be useless against tanks, armoured carriers or fighter jets. Let's not even go to the nuclear possibility.

I submit to you that the 2nd amendment is outdated in this regard. Certainly at a time when the most the government was likely to have over you was a cannon or two and some cavalry, it would have been effective. Today? I just don't think a handgun can balance a stealth fighter.

[seventy-one]

I didn't know that the 2nd amendment was to keep the government in control, I thought it was there in case a militia unit needs to be assembled quickly.

[JoS]

I doubt the US gov't would launch nuke strikes on its own soil, even to quash a rebelion. And just look at Iraq, how much damage people are doing with homemade weapons and smalla rms against the US war machine. Look how well the Jews in the Polish ghettos did against the Nazi war machine.

[Jimsween]

You underestimate conservatives, and Americans.

[Burkhead]

If we wanted to overthrow our government we have the ability and the RIGHT to. I don't think banning guns would make less crime it would only create more problems(like prohibition). Then if someone invaded our country, the everyday people wouldnt be able to fight back.

[madzakk]

At 8/3/05 03:25 PM, capn_g wrote:

would be both out gunned and out manned,
But we would be harder to find. Look at Iraq (And those are just a few malcontents) and, of course, Vietnam (A majority of the people who wanted to chart their own course)
since the government would not only have the party faithful but the entirety of the army at it's disposal to quell rebellion.
Minus defectors, which, I think, would be many. Also there is the Army morale factor; how would the average soldier respond to killing his own countrymen?

Say even further that the government becomes openly tyrannical and all citizens unite in common cause. Could they even concievably take on the US government? Considering they would (in theory) still have control of the army and all other military resources, even the most powerful firearms citizens would have access to would be useless against tanks, armoured carriers or fighter jets. Let's not even go to the nuclear possibility.

Tanks , jets, and nukes do not work very well when you shoot the operators in bed or whatever. That is guerilla warfare.

I submit to you that the 2nd amendment is outdated in this regard. Certainly at a time when the most the government was likely to have over you was a cannon or two and some cavalry, it would have been effective. Today? I just don't think a handgun can balance a stealth fighter. Shoot the pilot on the ground and the jet's useless. The US Army has a poor record of counter-insurgency in recent years, look at Vietnam.

I hope it never comes to that, it would be, by far, our bloodiest and most diviscive war!

[RedSkunk]

At 8/3/05 03:25 PM, capn_g wrote: I submit to you that the 2nd amendment is outdated in this regard.

Pretty much. Although I always have said that the 2nd amendment is specifically to protect states from the federal government, and not individual citizens from "the government" wholesale. But that's beside the point - whatever interpretation you accept - there is no realistic scenario in sight where an uprising in the US would have the chance to suceed.

[LazyDrunk]

I guess people tend to forget that those who serve in the military are also citizens. Given the choice between murdering civilians rising up against a truly tyrannical government, and quitting the military, I'd quit the military.

Ya gotta understand that even though America is politically polarized, we're all still Americans.

Could you give an example of the type oppression America would have to endure before a full-scale rebellion?

[Demosthenez]

Does it matter? Not really. Guns are already in America and they have a history here. We would never be able to get rid of them, especially with this ridiculous, porus, border. All outlawing guns would do is create another way for the underworld to prosper off of something alot of people want.

[capn-g]

At 8/3/05 04:37 PM, Jimsween wrote:

You underestimate conservatives, and Americans.

It's kind of impossible for me to over or underestimate something I don't understand. That's kind of why I'm asking about it in the first place. :/

At 8/3/05 04:37 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Could you give an example of the type oppression America would have to endure before a full-scale rebellion?

Not really, it's not my country so I couldn't accurately guess where the lines in the sand are. I'm certain there are many americans on both sides of the political line who feel they are already oppressed to some degree, so I'd really like to see a proper answer to this myself.

Those of you who brought up the military and defection, I certainly understand that it would be likely. BUT. There seems to be no shortage of police and private security whenever there are large protests held. Not that I have any love for protestors, or protesting because I don't, it's just the most immedeate example that comes to mind. I'm willing to bet sufficiently de-sensitized troops would have no trouble mowing down armed civillians if they were told by their superiors that these were "terrorists" or some such excuse. Remember, "I was just following orders" is the number one response given by Nazis when asked about their wartime activities.

[JoS]

At 8/3/05 04:37 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Could you give an example of the type oppression America would have to endure before a full-scale rebellion?

Unfair taxation levels that are just coating the politicians pockets, dissolving the SC or COngress, abolishing elections and becoming a dictatorship, imprisoning anyone who opposes them, killing citizens in he street or harsh curfews, and a biggie, marshal law.

[LazyDrunk]

At 8/3/05 05:22 PM, capn_g wrote:

At 8/3/05 04:37 PM, Jimsween wrote:

You underestimate conservatives, and Americans.

It's kind of impossible for me to over or underestimate something I don't understand. That's kind of why I'm asking about it in the first place. :/

What he means is that the level of "troop desensitization" it would take to mow down fellow Americans en masse is akin to Quebec trying to militarily overthrow Canada. Sure, some of them don't want to be part of the country, but when push comes to shove (a line in the sand we haven't yet established), they will not enforce the military against the people.

[capn-g]

I'm not really sure that I understand that comparison since a) Quebec doesn't have a military and b) they have onmore than one occasion required military assitance to settle problems between themselves and the native tribes in northern Quebec.

I'm not suggesting american soldiers are brainless automatons who's reasoning faculties don't extend beyond "Dur, okay sarge!" just that I highly doubt, should such an improbable scenario arise, that the military would be told the stright up truth. After all we're dealing with a theoretically corrupt and tyrannical government. Things like honesty and compunction are right out the window.

[carnie]

At 8/3/05 03:25 PM, capn_g wrote: No, this is not another gun control thread.

In my quest to gain better insight into my neigbors to the south, I've asked about guns and gun control many times, spoken to different people, heard and read radically divergent viewpoints and arrived at a fairly solid understanding in terms of why things are the way they are. One thing however still bugs me, so I ask this out of combination of sheer ignorance and curisosity:

I'm told that the primary function of the 2nd amendment is to allow the US citizenry to rise up and band together should the government turn tyrannical and need to be overthrown. Like communism, it's sounds great as a theory but I wonder, would it work in practice?

It has before. It worked back in the late 1700's when we declared our independence from Britain.

Consider: By and large, it's right-wing americans that own guns and support their use in society (note I did NOT say ALL).

Good thing you didn't say "ALL", because that is a gross generalization.

Given that the right wing currently controls all three branches of government, would it even be noticed if they turn slightly tyrannical?

YOu're reaching a bit here, but yes- we would notice.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "tyranny". And no, I'm not saying they ARE tyrannical, so all you uber-rightwingers can just wipe the froth from your chins. This is all theoretical, so let's keep it civil.

Awww, man... :)

Back to the point, I postulate that the government would simply declare those speaking against it as traitors.

Nope, we have people who speak against the government everyday and the government doesn't brand them as traitors.

Since the right supports the government (by virtue of the fact they elected it) and already has most of the guns, those opposed to the tyrants would be both out gunned and out manned, since the government would not only have the party faithful but the entirety of the army at it's disposal to quell rebellion.

Say even further that the government becomes openly tyrannical and all citizens unite in common cause. Could they even concievably take on the US government?

Yes, even though we still have the militias granted in the second amendment (the National Guard), we could still wage war the old fashioned way.

Considering they would (in theory) still have control of the army and all other military resources, even the most powerful firearms citizens would have access to would be useless against tanks, armoured carriers or fighter jets. Let's not even go to the nuclear possibility.

Absolutely, but the government wouldn't go nuclear, then they'd have no people to be tyrannical towards, not to mention that everyplace that would be struck would be a barren wasteland for the next 50-70 years.

We couldn't take on fighters (whilst they're in the air- on the ground is another story), and we can't stop tanks- but the citizenry has access to some fairly powerful weapons too... Take the .50 BMG for instance, this round has the power to penetrate armored vehicles and whatnot...

I submit to you that the 2nd amendment is outdated in this regard.

And I'd submit that you're wrong :)

Certainly at a time when the most the government was likely to have over you was a cannon or two and some cavalry, it would have been effective. Today? I just don't think a handgun can balance a stealth fighter.

You wouldn't fight an aircraft with a handgun, but that's not my point.

The 2nd amendment covers two separate issues:

1- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
2- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You are partly correct when you speak of needing the armament to overthrow the government if needed, but you're missing the second part of the meaning and spirit of this particular amendment, and that is the right of the people to bear arms. This isn't about overthrowing another tyrannical government, this isn't just about being able to hunt for our food or defend ourselves- it's about our right to own firearms. It's about not letting the government even think about taking them away (as the Brittish did when they started suspecting some dissention in the colonies). Our founding fathers felt so strongly that we should have our guns that they placed it second on their list, just after the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press, and governmental redress of grievances.

The second amendment stems a lot deeper than just protection from a tyrannical government. It goes to show that we are a free people, and as free people we can own a firearm, and that firearm is protected by the government.

I know that you're Canadian, and I also know a lot of Europeans like to haunt these boards and talk about our constitution and our laws. I'd just say that my right to own a gun here in Tampa, FL doesn't affect any of you, nor do our gun laws.

You think it's outdated and antiquated? I'm not saying this to be a dick, but I don't care what you guys think. I'm here in the states, and what matters is what I and my fellow countrymen think.

And so far as some of the left-slanting kids that are over here that also disagree with the second amendment, I'd tell them that they may want to find a good history book someplace and read up on why our country was founded the way that it was. I'd suggest that they look at the original spirit of the constitution, read the declaration and spend some time studying the amendments and court decisions that have shaped our country.

[capn-g]

At 8/3/05 07:49 PM, _carnie_ wrote: It has before. It worked back in the late 1700's when we declared our independence from Britain.

Yes indeed but obviously I meant relative to today.

Good thing you didn't say "ALL", because that is a gross generalization.

I only know what I'm told or have read. If you've got a link that shows party affiliation or political opinion versus gun ownership, post it up, I'd like to know.

YOu're reaching a bit here, but yes- we would notice.

I don't think it's a huge stretch. I'm fairly certain people in the past who've lived in democratic states that turned tyrannical weren't wholly unaware but they still let it happen. Granted, none of those states were America.

Awww, man... :)

I know, I'm a spoilsport ;P

Nope, we have people who speak against the government everyday and the government doesn't brand them as traitors.

Yet.....

Yes, even though we still have the militias granted in the second amendment (the National Guard), we could still wage war the old fashioned way.

Well that's kinda the crux of my questioning isn't it: would old-fashioned warring be effective against a US government gone bad? So far most of you seem to think it would and that is, quite frankly, encouraging.

Absolutely, but the government wouldn't go nuclear, then they'd have no people to be tyrannical towards, not to mention that everyplace that would be struck would be a barren wasteland for the next 50-70 years.

Alright, nuclear is an extreme but I only brought it up as a demonstration as to waht they have available to them, not necessarily to imply that they would actually use it. Certainly they have enough conventional armaments to the same job though.

We couldn't take on fighters (whilst they're in the air- on the ground is another story), and we can't stop tanks- but the citizenry has access to some fairly powerful weapons too... Take the .50 BMG for instance, this round has the power to penetrate armored vehicles and whatnot...

Out of curiosity, what would you need a weapon like that for in peacetime? Vaporising deer for easy, do-it-youself ground vennison? ;)

You wouldn't fight an aircraft with a handgun, but that's not my point.

Nor mine, just re-iterating the comparitive scale.

The 2nd amendment covers two separate issues:

You are partly correct when you speak of needing the armament to overthrow the government if needed, but you're missing the second part of the meaning and spirit of this particular amendment, and that is the right of the people to bear arms.

Actually, I'm not missing it, I'm omitting it purposefully for the sake of this discussion, hence my "this is not a gun control thread" disclaimer. Although I'm beginning to wonder if it's possible to seperate the two concepts...

I know that you're Canadian, and I also know a lot of Europeans like to haunt these boards and talk about our constitution and our laws. I'd just say that my right to own a gun here in Tampa, FL doesn't affect any of you, nor do our gun laws.

Again, not intended to be a thread about gun control, laws, or comparative status amongst nations. Just looking for some insight into the whole "tyrannical overthrow" thing.

You think it's outdated and antiquated? I'm not saying this to be a dick, but I don't care what you guys think. I'm here in the states, and what matters is what I and my fellow countrymen think.

I care what your fellow countymen think too, it's why I'm asking! And I said outdated as pertaining to the subject, ie no longer an adequate means of controlling a government gone wrong.

And so far as some of the left-slanting kids that are over here that also disagree with the second amendment, I'd tell them that they may want to find a good history book someplace and read up on why our country was founded the way that it was. I'd suggest that they look at the original spirit of the constitution, read the declaration and spend some time studying the amendments and court decisions that have shaped our country.

Well that's your business and beyond the purpose of this thread's intent. I would make the caveat however that the "spirit" of any document is largely open to interpretation. Precise wording is usually better. Unfortunately the constitution is over 200 years old and the manner in which we speak (and therefore, think) has changed considerably so what was crystal clear to the founding fathers is now somewhat lost in the historical fog.

[Elfer]

Permit me to postulate that the second amendment was never really important in the first place, because if a government is tyrannical, it doesn't matter what your rights are anyway, because they'll abridge them at their own leisure.

If you're trying to overthrow an entire tyrannical government, I don't think you'd care a whole lot about what the government says you can and can't do.

Perhaps you should be given the right to own guns, but not bear them. That way, you're allowed to keep a gun at home during a non-tyranny time, but you're not allowed to carry it around with you on the street.

Of course, if the security of the free state is threatened, all bets are off anyway, so that's when you can grab your gun and start shooting some tyrants.

[LazyDrunk]

Anybody else think the Bill of Rights has precedence over the government?

[madzakk]

At 8/3/05 11:26 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Anybody else think the Bill of Rights has precedence over the government?

The Bill of rights is the basis for the government; it the the rulebook for our leaders.

[LazyDrunk]

At 8/3/05 11:31 PM, madzakk wrote:

At 8/3/05 11:26 PM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: Anybody else think the Bill of Rights has precedence over the government?

The Bill of rights is the basis for the government; it the the rulebook for our leaders.

Rulebook? It's the goddamn instruction manuel. All these eminent domain rulings, unreasonable search and seizure shit is starting to piss me off. I'm glad NRA members have such a strong voice when it comes to 2nd amendment issues. When you read what the NRA has done, what they plan on doing, and how they accomplish it (instead of swallowing just what the TV divvies out to you) you realize they are very levelheaded and reasonable.

A little off topic, but . . . anyone have any decent links to groups opposing the recent supreme court ruling concerning private property ownership?

[carnie]

At 8/3/05 10:24 PM, capn_g wrote: Yes indeed but obviously I meant relative to today.

I know you did, I was just citing precedence.

I only know what I'm told or have read. If you've got a link that shows party affiliation or political opinion versus gun ownership, post it up, I'd like to know.

I don't need a link... I live here, remember? :)
Trust me, I know my fair share of libs and there aren't many people I know who are so anti-gun that they don't own at least one firearm. Actually, offhand, I can only think of one person.

I'm sure I may be able to find some stats, but they'd be called into question because they'd probably be pulled from the NRA or some other professional sporting outfit. So I won't bother. You can choose to believe me or not.

I don't think it's a huge stretch. I'm fairly certain people in the past who've lived in democratic states that turned tyrannical weren't wholly unaware but they still let it happen. Granted, none of those states were America.

And that's the deciding factor here. We Americans (on both sides of the aisle) are always watching our government and calling many things into question.

Yet.....

Yet what?
When was the last time we executed a traitor for voicing an opinion contrary to what the government was siding with?

Well that's kinda the crux of my questioning isn't it: would old-fashioned warring be effective against a US government gone bad? So far most of you seem to think it would and that is, quite frankly, encouraging.

Absolutely.

Alright, nuclear is an extreme but I only brought it up as a demonstration as to waht they have available to them, not necessarily to imply that they would actually use it. Certainly they have enough conventional armaments to the same job though.

I know you were putting the nuclear option in there for effect, but I didn't want some other moron who's reading this to latch onto it and go on and on about how Bush is gonna nuke Indiana or some shit.

Out of curiosity, what would you need a weapon like that for in peacetime? Vaporising deer for easy, do-it-youself ground vennison? ;)

Lots of reasons. Sport is one of them. I, personally don't hunt but maintain a collection of firearms that I just like to shoot.

And if you've never shot a "Light-fifty" you are truly missing out on something. It's extremely accurate and a shitload of fun to shoot. It's mainly a sport gun or, I suppose you could use it to hunt Bears or something in Alaska (from Washington state).

Nor mine, just re-iterating the comparitive scale.

Actually, I'm not missing it, I'm omitting it purposefully for the sake of this discussion, hence my "this is not a gun control thread" disclaimer. Although I'm beginning to wonder if it's possible to seperate the two concepts...

I'd say no. If we're going to discuss it, we should discuss it in entirety. To only discuss one aspect of it and deem it impractical on that one half of it isn't doing it justice. And, not to mention the latter half deals directly with the first half.

Again, not intended to be a thread about gun control, laws, or comparative status amongst nations. Just looking for some insight into the whole "tyrannical overthrow" thing.

I understand, but I can't separate the two. They're too intertwined.

I care what your fellow countymen think too, it's why I'm asking!

I hope you understand my guarded nature when it comes to this... it seems like everyone from other countries think it's the friggin wild-west over here, and it isn't the case. I get defensive because I'm tired of so many people who like to damn us for our guns when they really don't understand or care to even try to understand our mindset. I don't mean this to you, specifically, I say it to illustrate where my frustration originates.

And I said outdated as pertaining to the subject, ie no longer an adequate means of controlling a government gone wrong.

I'd still disagree with you, but understand what you're stabbing at.

The bottom line is that if the government all the sudden went 1984 style, or attempted to flip itself to a military state, you'd see a bunch of fighting in the streets of nearly every city in the union. And although many of our weapons would be ineffectual to the armored vehicles and other mainstays of the military, we'd still have a much better chance than tossing rocks.

Well that's your business and beyond the purpose of this thread's intent.

Yeah, I know- but you know how I like to straddle my moral high-horse every now and again :)

I would make the caveat however that the "spirit" of any document is largely open to interpretation. Precise wording is usually better. Unfortunately the constitution is over 200 years old and the manner in which we speak (and therefore, think) has changed considerably so what was crystal clear to the founding fathers is now somewhat lost in the historical fog.

That's all true, but it isn't like we unearthed some 3500 year old document and are trying to discern it's meaning. We've been living under this rule of law the entire time we've been a country, and while we may speak differently these days and think differently, the idea hasn't been lost. It's been passed verbally, and solidified with court precedent for the last 200 years. The actual document may be old but the spirit still does live on, as it's never died.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/3/05 11:56 PM, _carnie_ wrote: Trust me, I know my fair share of libs and there aren't many people I know who are so anti-gun that they don't own at least one firearm. Actually, offhand, I can only think of one person.

Just because someone doesn't own a gun doesn't make them hardcore anti-gun. I could barely name anyone who acctually owns a gun. I live in the deep city, there is no need for a gun here. Whether someone is progun or anti-gun, there is no need for a gun within the city limits of any major city. Out here having a gun is for rednecks who have have a gun to carry some respect because they get none any other way. It's like bringing a knife to a grocery store, why? Because you can? When the hell has that ever been a good reason? It's the same reason anarchists break shit and teenagers destroy windows and stuff.

In the middle of nowhere a gun can be useful, and people who hunt need guns, but no one else needs them.

[carnie]

At 8/4/05 12:10 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Just because someone doesn't own a gun doesn't make them hardcore anti-gun. I could barely name anyone who acctually owns a gun.

Yes, and if your profile is correct, you live in Seattle. Where I live it's just the opposite.

I live in the deep city, there is no need for a gun here.

Well, good for you. Don't buy one.

Whether someone is progun or anti-gun, there is no need for a gun within the city limits of any major city.

That's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

Although I would say it's a bit naive.

Out here having a gun is for rednecks who have have a gun to carry some respect because they get none any other way.

Out here, you don't need to be a redneck to own a gun- and I'd be willing to bet there are many more guns floating around Washington that you're aware of. But again, this is opinion.

It's like bringing a knife to a grocery store, why? Because you can?

What's a knife in a grocery store have to do with anything?

When the hell has that ever been a good reason? It's the same reason anarchists break shit and teenagers destroy windows and stuff.

Very poor comparisons. Carrying a gun isn't something people do to "rebel".

In the middle of nowhere a gun can be useful, and people who hunt need guns, but no one else needs them.

Again, this is the beauty of the gun laws. You don't have to buy one.

[capn-g]

At 8/3/05 11:56 PM, _carnie_ wrote: I'm sure I may be able to find some stats, but they'd be called into question because they'd probably be pulled from the NRA or some other professional sporting outfit. So I won't bother. You can choose to believe me or not.

I'd be willing to accept NRA stats if you have them. Remember, I'm not some left-wing looney who's going to run around screaming "OMFG! NRA ARE TEH GUN NUTZ!!!" I'd like to believe an organization as long standing as thr NRA keeps accurate records of it's primary interest. And I have no reason to think you would lie to me, merely that since your views are based on personal experience, it's a somewhat limited account (numerically speaking, since there's only one of you).

And that's the deciding factor here. We Americans (on both sides of the aisle) are always watching our government and calling many things into question.

Hopefully that trend continues indefinately.

Yet what?
When was the last time we executed a traitor for voicing an opinion contrary to what the government was siding with?

To date, none that I know of but tyrannical twists need not happen so dramatically. Usually when they do, it's as a final phase of a long build up that has been noticed but tolerated.

I know you were putting the nuclear option in there for effect, but I didn't want some other moron who's reading this to latch onto it and go on and on about how Bush is gonna nuke Indiana or some shit.

Heh, they'd do that anyway, they need no encouragment from me ;)

I understand, but I can't separate the two. They're too intertwined.

That's very interesting. I don't have any insight or analysis for it, just one of those things that make you go "hmmm".

I hope you understand my guarded nature when it comes to this... it seems like everyone from other countries think it's the friggin wild-west over here, and it isn't the case.

Well I won't try to sugar coat it for you, that IS pretty much the case. Unfortunately, that puts the burden of responsibility for educating the masses on you and other responsible gun owners.

I get defensive because I'm tired of so many people who like to damn us for our guns when they really don't understand or care to even try to understand our mindset. I don't mean this to you, specifically, I say it to illustrate where my frustration originates.

I understand that but you should try to remember that the concept is alien to the rest of us, often to the point that even trying to comprehend it is impossible. If it gets too much you can always console yourself by saying "Fuck 'em, what do they know anyway?" becuase the answer is evidently "nothing".

Yeah, I know- but you know how I like to straddle my moral high-horse every now and again :)

Who doesn't?

That's all true, but it isn't like we unearthed some 3500 year old document and are trying to discern it's meaning. We've been living under this rule of law the entire time we've been a country, and while we may speak differently these days and think differently, the idea hasn't been lost. It's been passed verbally, and solidified with court precedent for the last 200 years. The actual document may be old but the spirit still does live on, as it's never died.

So does that mean the second amendment has always been a point of controversy within the american populace or is it a more recent phenomenon?

[Camarohusky]

At 8/4/05 12:18 AM, _carnie_ wrote: That's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

Although I would say it's a bit naive.

Why?

What's a knife in a grocery store have to do with anything?

It's just a representation of how useless owning a gun in a city is.

Very poor comparisons. Carrying a gun isn't something people do to "rebel".

It's the excuse "I own one because I can." The because I can is a poor exucse.

[LazyDrunk]

At 8/4/05 12:22 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/4/05 12:18 AM, _carnie_ wrote: That's your opinion. You're entitled to it.

Although I would say it's a bit naive.

Why?

Hey look, someone's raping my wife and killing my child. I better call the cops.

What's a knife in a grocery store have to do with anything?

It's just a representation of how useless owning a gun in a city is.

I'd rather have a knife than a cell phone.

Very poor comparisons. Carrying a gun isn't something people do to "rebel".

It's the excuse "I own one because I can." The because I can is a poor exucse.

To believe you'll be protected at all times by anyone other than yourself is naive. Why would you want to strip yourself of that protection, let alone others?

[Memorize]

At 8/4/05 12:22 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

It's just a representation of how useless owning a gun in a city is.

I highly doubt someone is going to mug you if they see you carrying a gun.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/4/05 12:26 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: To believe you'll be protected at all times by anyone other than yourself is naive. Why would you want to strip yourself of that protection, let alone others?

Who says I need the protection? I've lived up here for a while and done some stuf that people would consider dangeroud and never once have I ever been in need of a weapon, let alone a firearm. I don't succumb to fear.

[Camarohusky]

At 8/4/05 12:27 AM, TimeFrame wrote: I highly doubt someone is going to mug you if they see you carrying a gun.

The chances of someone mugging me is extremely low. The chances of someone getting mugged anywhere in this city is extremely low.

[Memorize]

At 8/4/05 12:30 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

The chances of someone mugging me is extremely low. The chances of someone getting mugged anywhere in this city is extremely low.

So, just because it's low, it's a bad idea? tisk tisk.

Guns can protect you from: muggers, rapists, murderers, robbers (who all of which (if they had a gun) probly didnt aquire a gun legally).

[LazyDrunk]

At 8/4/05 12:28 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/4/05 12:26 AM, -LazyDrunk- wrote: To believe you'll be protected at all times by anyone other than yourself is naive. Why would you want to strip yourself of that protection, let alone others?

Who says I need the protection?

You do. If you don't want it, don't own a gun. Simple as that. I won't force you.

I've lived up here for a while and done some stuf that people would consider dangeroud and never once have I ever been in need of a weapon, let alone a firearm.

Could you provide me with some examples of what you've done that's dangerous? I'm a little lost when you say that.

You are aware bad things happen to good people, right?

I don't succumb to fear.

That's the naivety right there. I don't fear that every day when I come home from work that my family is being ravaged by some of the sick fucks we have running around, but I'm prepared to take necessary and effective steps if it ever comes to that.

I'll side for preparation over blind faith any day of the week when it comes to my and my family's safety and well-being.