At 11/3/12 03:55 PM, Cootie wrote:
You know that the Amendments are not permanent though. They can be changed and taken away.
The 2nd Amendment is permanent, though, both in how it's been worded and in how the Supreme Court ruled in Heller vs District of Columbia, which reaffirmed the right of the American Citizen to keep and bare arms. From a legal point of view, it will never happen. Our right to keep and bare arms is ironclad.
From a practical standpoint, even if you could overturn the law, it would be the most ineffective thing for the government to event ATTEMPT to enforce since the Prohibition of Alcohol and the "War on Drugs." There's an estimated 310 Million firearms in the in the United States as we speak (source: CNN by the Numbers. That's almost one gun for ever man, woman, and child in this country. As a law abiding citizen who has a clean criminal background, I can walk out of my door right now, go down to the local pawnshop, get a pistol and ammunition for it, and be back in under 45 minutes. Or a shotgun. Or an oh-so-scary looking "Assault Rifle" or "Sniper Rifle" as they are called (which are really just sporting weapons). That's if I want the gun's serial number permanently linked to my Social Security Number. If I don't, I can always buy a used firearm off a friend who bought it off his friend and so on, the law can't and won't do anything to stop such transactions because it's a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and will have ramifications so far reaching as to make the very hair on your head hurt.
Now, those are just LEGAL means I can speak of to acquire a gun. Do you really want me to speak on how easy it is to illegally acquire a firearm, with no serial number than can't be traced? Or how easy it is to construct a simple zip gun from parts you would get at a hardware store? How about a gun that requires no skill to construct and requires no license at all to acquire?
And you think you're going to be able to legislate against this kind of thing?
You are dumber than I give you credit for.
At 11/3/12 05:05 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
Why would the second amendment let people have guns in there homes without having a license/course that trains them how to handle, clean, store, and all around be responsible and take care of a weapon ?
Because unlike Canada, the majority of us grew up with firearms and already know how to do these things (you know, that whole "1 gun for every man, woman, and child thing"). And if we don't, it's very easy to either (a) find somebody closeby to show us or (b) sign up for training courses to do those things.
Why say Canada is a magic land just because it has proper gun regulation and low gun related crimes ?
You guys got ahead of the issue before it became a problem. You cannot apply the same kind of legislation in the United States and expect the same result,.
At 11/5/12 01:32 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:
If a person is defenseless a gun won't change that fact.
Would you say that to somebody holding a gun on you? "Oh, you're defenseless, a gun won't change that fact." They can kill, maim, or seriously wound you with a single shot, and it's as easy to do as clicking a mouse.
I think your ego has got in the way of logical thinking as I have never needed a gun
Your experiences are not representative of the rest of the population at large, and as such, do not apply.
of course the trick is to using your brain and not putting yourself in harms way which a gun does just that puts you in harms way.
So simply having a gun puts you in harms way, hm? So I could just be walking around, minding my own business with my sidearm concealed on my body (or openly carrying, as some states allow without a permit), and I'm just going to ATTRACT harm my way? How does that work?
Plus when your trying to "be smart" with a gun in hand "protecting yourself" because YOU put yourself in a bad spot then you will go to jail for murder or some other charge point blank and period not worth the hassle.
The trick to carrying a gun is using your brain and not using it in a manner which will put you in harm's way. If you have an opportunity to use it, do so, if not, don't risk it. But be aware that when you use it to defend yourself, the situation will be reviewed by the appropriate authorities, and you do run the risk of going to jail for murder if cannot justify pulling the trigger.
But that's a risk I'm willing to take to defend my life, and to defend the lives of those I love. It is not your place to question it, or revoke my right to do so.
At 11/5/12 08:15 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:
You might want to look into something referred to as "The non Aggression Principle" !
You might want to look into something called "Castle Doctrine."
Also you have the choice to move to a low NO crime area
Move to Singapore, then. They have the lowest incidence of crime in the modern world, lower than Canada, even.
They also beat people there with bamboo poles as a punishment attached to their prison sentences, but that's for another topic.
so it would hypothetically be your fault that YOU let someone break into your home at night.
So if somebody busted down my door, or picked the lock, it would be my fault my house got broken into it?
Does your Special Education teacher know you're online right now, much less that you have access to a computer with an internet connection?
Also there's no guns in jail well YOU won't have one when you go there after you are tried for murder and receive a reduced sentience for murder under "Self Defense" of perhaps you may be able to convince the judge it was a crime of passion.
Again, Castle Doctrine. I have a right to be safe in my home, and I have a right to defend myself and my loved ones from harm. If I find you in my home after dark and you aren't welcome here, you have one of two options; you can walk out of here of your own power, or you can be carried out in a body bag. Or, option 3; don't break in at all, thus saving us both the trouble.