Guns, pros and cons!

[Mike]

Part of a quote by Mike.

Mike show us were the Constitution speaks to "armed society on an equil footing to those that rule them".

Mike, "rule" is a word for Kings.............we use govern.

Are you really OK with Timothy McVay having a nuclear weapon?

Comparing nuclear weapons to gun s is a fallacious argument. The technology required to possess a nuclear weapon is so complex that it makes it all but impossible except for the individuals that are backed by huge amounts of $$ and the will to spend it on something that can be easily controlled by the "world order". The gun "cat" is already out of the bag, so to speak and cannot be controlled by you, me, or even the world order of governments at this point. That this "world order" is trying to control all guns in all lands is unattainable, and would lead to only the criminals having the guns.

Let's keep the discussion on track. What are the pros and cons of owning a gun? To me the pro is that it puts me on equal footing, force wise, with any intruder, criminal intent on harming me, or government(theoretically) that is intent on RULING me. The cons are that a gun can be dangerous in the hands of an untrained individual, can be used by my opponent to equal the force "field" if you will so that I don't have an advantage in defending myself, and they are relatively expensive to buy, and train with.

Except for the con that my opponent may posses one also, in which case I would be at an equal position of force, the other cons I can control or at least make an educated decision on.

 

[Mike Christian]

As I just said, many of the actions taken in BOTH these scenarios are ALREADY illegal.

The legality isn't the question...possessing firearms is intended to make one feel safer, no? To arm is to protect...who is safer? Do these people represent the vast minority or majority of arm bearing people?

 

[Jim Craik]

John,

Our govenment is elected by the people, Mr Obama ran on heath care reform and was duly elected by the PEOPLE! This is not some power grab!!!!

If you are not happy use the political proccess and elect someone else.

You have a lot of nerve to advocate the violent overthrough of an elected govenment and then talk about liberals hating the founding fathers! They fought and died for this system..............................

 

[Mike]

I can tell you that if/when the attack upon the Second Amendment is undertaken in such a way that it may just be feasible that it will be changed so that individuals in the U.S. no longer have the right to posses firearms legally, this country will be torn apart. When and how this happens, I do not know, but it will happen and it will result in a country the looks nothing like it did when it was originally born, or even how it does today. It will be a fundamentally changed country.

 

[Mike]

The legality isn't the question...possessing firearms is intended to make one feel safer, no? To arm is to protect...who is safer? Do these people represent the vast minority or majority of arm bearing people?

You or I cannot pretend to know how something makes someone "feel". That question is silly, IMHO.

To me a firearm is about leveling the playing field should someone try and do harm to me, my family, or to other innocent people. It is in these instances, and ONLY in these instances that I would bear a firearm. Period.

Do I feel "safe" because I own a gun? NO! I feel like I may have a fighting chance should the worst of threat scenarios present itself. Do I hope that I ever have to bear a firearm in defense of myself, family, or innocent individual? NO! Am I prepared to do so if I must? YES.

 

[Nick]

I can tell you that if/when the attack upon the Second Amendment is undertaken in such a way that it may just be feasible that it will be changed so that individuals in the U.S. no longer have the right to posses firearms legally, this country will be torn apart. When and how this happens, I do not know, but it will happen and it will result in a country the looks nothing like it did when it was originally born, or even how it does today. It will be a fundamentally changed country.

Mike,

I don't think it would be as bad as you think if it did change, "If the majority of the electorate felt the cons of bearing arms in public."

Firstly it is the majority of the people secondly I would have thought the pro gun side believe in democracy and the democratic process.

 

[Jim Craik]

Mike, if the second amendment is overturned it will be through the amendment proccess, if that happens, a large majority of the people will be for it. If that happens (and I doubt it), then it will be a Constitutional Amendment and it would be law. And good Americans like you obay the law, right?

 

[Mike]

In everything we have a choice. What I am telling you is that if many Americans are given the choice of giving up their weapons, going to jail, fighting to the death to keep them, or moving to another territory/state/country that agrees with them and their right to possess arms, many will choose each of those paths, and it will be a sad day in the history of this country.

Personally, I'm the love it or leave it type, and I believe in the democratic process. I would either give up my arms peacefully, or leave to go to another location that respects my rights as a firearm owner. What I will do if/when the actual situation presents itself....I have no idea. Probably go somewhere else.

 

[Jim Craik]

Mike,

You bring up 100,000 heavally armed people storming the White House and complain that you are not as well armed as the government. It sounds to me like you think the people should be as well armed as the govenment.

Please tell us what weapons you feel you should have?

 

[Daryl Adams]

I'm sorry that incident in Chicago scared you, but you never know what could have happened if dirty harry never scared off that guy.

Actually I think I do know what would have happened had the burglar been successful. My neighborhood was Edison Park, which is probably the safest in Chicago because it has the highest population of cops living there. A cop I knew who lived a few doors down told me they suspected the burglar was a guy who knew "dirty harry" and wanted what harry had in his basement..........his gun collection. Had the burglary been a success there would have been a couple dozen more guns on the steet in the hands of who-knows what kind of whackjobs. If harry had not been a gun nut, the whole thing might never have happened. I found it impossible to find anything positive about harry and his arsenal.

 

[Jim Craik]

Daryl++++++

 

[Doug S.]

I have also noticed that liberals absolutely hate our founding fathers. I have even been told by one that they were idiots...

I have to dispute that, John.....while I do seem to have attitudes that vary from conservative to liberal, for the most part I believe in my heart that the liberal agenda is better for the majority of the people in America, while the conservative agenda is better for the minority who are in the upper income levels.

To characterize those who subscribe to the liberal philosophy in a global manner as you did is ludicrous.....especially when you base that belief on the statement of ONE. I, for one, have great respect and admiration for the founding fathers of our nation, believe in my heart that they set a great foundation on which to build a great nation, based on the circumstances at the time.

However, I do ask you.....do you really believe that those who drafted the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution could possibly have predicted the manner in which our society has progressed in the couple of hundred years since they wrote those documents? Keep in mind that they were still using horses and buggies for transportation in those days, as had mankind for thousands of years before that, so technical "progress", so to speak, was not so great. Then came the "discovery" of electricity (we all know the story of Ben Franklin, the key and the kite), perhaps IMHO the greatest development in mankind's history....and technology began to advance in an exponential manner.

Do you really believe the founding fathers were expecting us to be communicating with computers? Surely not!

There are challenges today that the constitutional fathers could never have conceptualized.....so how could they have "planned" for them in our founding documents?

Yet, plan they did, in a manner....they established the process for Constitutional ammendments. At first the topics related to issues suffered in the past at the hands of the Brits....freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, etc....but I'd bet a paycheck they would be surprised at the manner in which our political system has been twisted to become what it is today.

So, no, I do not hate our founding fathers, and certanly do not believe they were idiots, but I do recognize that there are challenges in this advanced sociological system we call "Democracy" that were incomprehensible to them.....and therefore do not necessarily believe that the only way to approach those issues is with the same logic that would have been applied by the founding fathers.

Cheers from Doug!!

 

[Mike]

Mike,

You bring up 100,000 heavally armed people storming the White House and complain that you are not as well armed as the government. It sounds to me like you think the people should be as well armed as the govenment.

Please tell us what weapons you feel you should have?

For my purposes, which is to be able to confront a threat effectively for my own personal safety or the safety of others, I have what I need.

But you are trying to stray from the point, which is that there are good things and bad things about guns. In my opinion, one of the good things is that the government knows that the citizens it governs are armed, and if it thinks about going the way of a RULING party, then there may be violent consequences.

Tell me, if the citizens are forced to give up all their weapons, what motivation does the beauracrat have to "do the right thing" and not simply do everything possible to enrich himself? The rule of law? Isn't the ultimate rule of law, in this country, supposed to be in the hands of the people, and isn't the ultimate power, both by government, as well as an individual, if the entity has the ability to end the life of each other? How exactly would the life of a tyranical ruler, which I am NOT saying we have right now, be ended if the people don't have weapons that are on the same level as the tyranical "government"? With sticks and stones? Not likely.

The Second Amendment is like the gun itself. The mere fact that it exists is grounds for those that would dominate you and me, and everyone they could, to give pause and think about what COULD happen. Not what WILL happen. Remove the guns, and for that matter the Second Amendment itself, and it is just about a certainty what WILL happen. History shows that those with the power end up killing or subjugating those with no power. It has happened in this country, and IS happening right now in other countries.

Again, this gets down to the fact that many people, it appears yourselves included, want to "change" things. To reverse laws and rights that have served this country for better than 200 years.

As opposed to me, and people like me, that just want thing to remain the same so we can raise happy, healthy families. We don't want to tell you how you should live your life. Gay, straight? I couldn't care less about what you do in your home. Guns, no guns? Same thing. I couldn't care les about the choices you make in your own home.

Just don't try and push your views upon me or anyone else. If you think things are SO out of whack that THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S AMENDMENTS are simply wrong, well, as I said I would probably choose given those situation facts, you are still free to live somewhere else, under whatever rules/laws you find more appealing. There's plenty of options to choose from ya know?

 

[Jim Craik]

Doug,

I am continually amazed by you patience!

We have folks here who talk of the "Founding Fathers" with such reverance and in the next breath talk of "Taking our Country back", Second Amendnent solutions and armed takeovers!

What a buch of crap.

The Founding Fathers went to great lengths make the Consititution The best they could, and did an incredable job. But it was not perfect. ie: Women could not vote, blacks could not vote, the Vice Prez was second place in the last election.......

But they were smart enough to make a process where this document could be changed/amended and it has been amended many times, including the 2nd Amendment.

Then we get people who think that anyone who even talks of changing it "HATE THE FOUNDING FATHERS" what a bunch of morons!

 

[Mike Christian]

You or I cannot pretend to know how something makes someone "feel". That question is silly, IMHO.

This discussion is silly IMHO. I know how I feel. Out.

 

[Nick]

.

Just don't try and push your views upon me or anyone else. ?

To me this is one of the biggest cons of guns. Some, (and I mean some not all but possibly a significant amount 100,000 estimated by others) talk of having them for the defence of democratic rights, for freedom and justice, to defend against dictatorship.

What they mean is the defence of democratic rights as long as those rights are the beliefs they hold. As soon as those rights differ or look like they may differ from their views, democracy, freedom and justice disappears out the window and they will use guns to threaten impose and push their will, dicatorship, and views on others.

In fact the mirror image of what they say they need guns to defend themselves against.

 

[Jim Craik]

Nick,

For a Brit, you seem to have a fairly good grasp on our society, I'm sorry to say that most of us in the states understand little of you system. Thanks for the interest and perspective.

Nick, I cant tell you the number of times on this site that people who disagree with me tell me to "shut the f*** up" or block my posts. People who clame to have such a great understanding of the 2nd Amendment have little understanding of the 1st.

 

[Mike]

Is that all you got?

This has been fun ruining your guys' day with FACTS, as opposed to "feelings" but I really must be going now.

BU-BYE!

 

[Nick]

Nick,

For a Brit, you seem to have a fairly good grasp on our society, I'm sorry to say that most of us in the states understand little of you system. Thanks for the interest and perspective.

Nick, I cant tell you the number of times on this site that people who disagree with me tell me to "shut the f*** up" or block my posts. People who clame to have such a great understanding of the 2nd Amendment have little understanding of the 1st.

Jim thanks.

Our society has it’s own problems but on the whole I believe we have a very tolerant one. I believe totally in democracy and freedom of speech, even though sometimes that means I have to accept a democratically elected government doing things I do not agree with, or the freedom of speech enabling a racist political party, which we have in this country the right to TV air time.

The US is without doubt a great country, but there may come a time when the few will have to accept the democratic will of the majority.

If they don’t, and use guns to impose their will, the law abiders become the law breakers and democracy dies

 

[Daryl Adams]

In my opinion, one of the good things is that the government knows that the citizens it governs are armed, and if it thinks about going the way of a RULING party, then there may be violent consequences.

Tell me, if the citizens are forced to give up all their weapons, what motivation does the beauracrat have to "do the right thing" and not simply do everything possible to enrich himself? The rule of law? Isn't the ultimate rule of law, in this country, supposed to be in the hands of the people, and isn't the ultimate power, both by government, as well as an individual, if the entity has the ability to end the life of each other?

Whoa, Dude...stand down!! That's some pretty scary rhetoric. You may end up on somebody's watch list. I think this party is getting a bit weird and will be saying a polite goodbye.