Why do you support gun ownership?

[Bugfatty300]

The fact that almost anyone can get a gun in your country, and no psychological testing is required, is quite unsatisfactory IMO

They didn't pyscho-test me when I got my drivers license either.

How did they know I wasn't going to get hammered and try to drive home and kill a family in a minivan?

And by the way, most murderers pass psychological testing anyway. Don't know how it would help.

 

[Paalikles]

The car is not meant as a tool for killing. Unlike the gun.

But 17 pages worth of posts in this thread means that either you will not change your mind, or it is pointless to try to field an opinion anyway.

So I ll uncheck subscription to this thread now, and ignore it all together.

 

[Bugfatty300]

The car is not meant as a tool for killing. Unlike the gun.

But a vehicle can kill just as easily no?

And infact cars "kill" FAR more than all the firearm murders and accidents combined. Ironic isn't it?

But 17 pages worth of posts in this thread means that either you will not change your mind, or it is pointless to try to field an opinion anyway.

I've actually only had a chance to post 6 or 7 times in the eight days of this thread's life. Some of us work for a living.

 

[IglooDame]

The car is not meant as a tool for killing. Unlike the gun.

But 17 pages worth of posts in this thread means that either you will not change your mind, or it is pointless to try to field an opinion anyway.

So I ll uncheck subscription to this thread now, and ignore it all together.

The thing is, the elements that apparently form the basis for your opinion have already been addressed:

"Not everyone are fit to owning a gun." - Sure, but denying the adults that are 'unfit' (predisposed to crime/violence, I'm assuming) requires denying the adults that are 'fit' as well, and even then it won't necessarily be effective denial.

(paraphrased) "The gun is meant as a tool for killing" - Yes, but that doesn't mean it cannot be used legitimately, defensively, to save lives as well, and studies show that it IS used for that, thousands of times per year.

So unless you've got a new point to make, indeed you aren't likely to change anyone's mind.

 

[JohnRM]

There is no argument neccessary against gun ownership. I will own firearms and if any attempt is made to take them away, you will pad those firearms murder stats. There are millions of Americans like me who will do the same, so I don't see the illegalization of firearms as an option.

 

[.Shane.]

There is no argument neccessary against gun ownership. I will own firearms and if any attempt is made to take them away, you will pad those firearms murder stats. There are millions of Americans like me who will do the same, so I don't see the illegalization of firearms as an option.

Even if it was due to, say an amendment to the constitution?

That's another thing I find funny about the rabid gun owners (not saying this is you, John HSOG, I'm speaking generally), they go on and on about the "rule of law" and their "constitutional rights", but if pressed, they admit that they wouldn't follow the law themselves if it was changed to end some forms of gun ownership.

 

[IglooDame]

Even if it was due to, say an amendment to the constitution?

That's another thing I find funny about the rabid gun owners (not saying this is you, John HSOG, I'm speaking generally), they go on and on about the "rule of law" and their "constitutional rights", but if pressed, they admit that they wouldn't follow the law themselves if it was changed to end some forms of gun ownership.

I think the common understanding is: if the Second Amendment is amended into nonexistence, it will be proof that the United States isn't really the United States anymore. Would you have a similar judgement of the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments, perchance? Would you stop exercising your freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, if the First Amendment was repealed?

 

[.Shane.]

I think the common understanding is: if the Second Amendment is amended into nonexistence, it will be proof that the United States isn't really the United States anymore. Would you have a similar judgement of the First, Fourth, or Fifth Amendments, perchance? Would you stop exercising your freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, if the First Amendment was repealed?

No, it would be proof that time and standards change. And, if I disagreed I'd move to Canada.

The point is I'm rarely, if ever, on my high horse about the "rule of law" or "mah rights" so, I wouldn't be put in a position of hypocrisy. I'm just saying the argument is largely disingenious.

And, as for your comparison, a few thoughts. First off, its all relative. Different amendments have different values. I think that people would rejoice if we repealed the amendment legalizing income tax. I also think that if they repealed, say, the direct election of Senators, no one would march on Washington.

TBH, the only Amendments I see as sacred are 1, 13-15, and the women's right to vote (18?). The right to own guns has little bearing on the main of traditional rights in the Western liberal tradition. Its an almost uniquely American phenomenon and there's no correlation between gun ownership and the ability to overthrow a government OR to halt an invasion. Unlike free speech, gun ownership does not somehow = freedom and liberty. So, from a standpoint of gun ownership as a way to insure democracy, that's a wholly empty argument. Gun ownership, unlike free speech is a matter of personal preference (that is a legal choice w/ some restrictions relative to where you live) based on social standards from 200 years ago. There are other social standards from 200 years ago that we've consequently disavowed (the most obvious being slavery, but also expanding the franchise to women, etc...)

So, to reverse your argument, if they repealed the income tax would you march on Washington about how by repealing an amendment they're undoing the fabric of the country? Would you steadfastly keep sending in your 1040 even as federal agents beat down your door w/ rolls of $20 bills in refunds? "YOU CAN TAKE MY 1040 FROM MAH COLD DEAD HANDS!"

Additionally, unlike the First Amendment, its already established that states and municipalities can restrict guns as we can see by the wide variety of statutes. For whatever reason it seems that while the 14th Amendment made the federal govt. the guarantor of citizenship and civil rights it did not apply to gun ownership.

So, while California can do very little to prohibit my right of free speech, they could pass a law tomorrow saying turn in your handguns. Would the gun nuts respect that? Its legal. It doesn't defile what makes the US the place it is.

As you know from our past discussions, I'm not an anti-gun person. I want reasonable laws and I want an honest policy discussion.

 

[IglooDame]

And, as for your comparison, a few thoughts. First off, its all relative. Different amendments have different values. I think that people would rejoice if we repealed the amendment legalizing income tax. I also think that if they repealed, say, the direct election of Senators, no one would march on Washington.

TBH, the only Amendments I see as sacred are 1, 13-15, and the women's right to vote (18?). The right to own guns has little bearing on the main of traditional rights in the Western liberal tradition. Its an almost uniquely American phenomenon and there's no correlation between gun ownership and the ability to overthrow a government OR to halt an invasion. Unlike free speech, gun ownership does not somehow = freedom and liberty. So, from a standpoint of gun ownership as a way to insure democracy, that's a wholly empty argument. Gun ownership, unlike free speech is a matter of personal preference (that is a legal choice w/ some restrictions relative to where you live) based on social standards from 200 years ago. There are other social standards from 200 years ago that we've consequently disavowed (the most obvious being slavery, but also expanding the franchise to women, etc...)

The Constitution itself is pretty much a framework for how government runs, but the first ten amendments draw a line in the sand over which the government may not step. Personally, I think each of them is critical - even the not-likely-to-be-infringed-soon Third. I personally don't much partake of the freedom of assembly, and fortunately at this point I've needed little of the protections of the Fourth through Eighth Amendments.

So, to reverse your argument, if they repealed the income tax would you march on Washington about how by repealing an amendment they're undoing the fabric of the country? Would you steadfastly keep sending in your 1040 even as federal agents beat down your door w/ rolls of $20 bills in refunds? "YOU CAN TAKE MY 1040 FROM MAH COLD DEAD HANDS!"

Additionally, unlike the First Amendment, its already established that states and municipalities can restrict guns as we can see by the wide variety of statutes. For whatever reason it seems that while the 14th Amendment made the federal govt. the guarantor of citizenship and civil rights it did not apply to gun ownership.

Unlike the First Amendment? States and municipalities can establish ordinances regulating large crowds, they can regulate or prohibit signs, they can limit profanity, they can establish "free speech zones" for protestors...

So, while California can do very little to prohibit my right of free speech, they could pass a law tomorrow saying turn in your handguns. Would the gun nuts respect that? Its legal. It doesn't defile what makes the US the place it is.

I'm sure some gun nuts would abide by the law, and some would passively skirt the law, and some would follow a path similar to John HSOG's. Sidenote here, that exact possibility is why gun nuts are so opposed to mandatory registration of guns.

As you know from our past discussions, I'm not an anti-gun person. I want reasonable laws and I want an honest policy discussion.

Though I'm most definitely a pro-gun person, I also want reasonable laws (ummm, our definitions of reasonable are probably different though ;-) ), and an honest policy discussion. You'll find that my stance breaks down into four basic bits:
- Firearms are useful for personal self-defense
- Bans don't work as intended
- We in the US have a constitutional right to arm ourselves
- That right is among the essential elements of our Republic

That last one is the most vague and least open to specific argument pro or con, but also the one I feel most strongly about.

 

[Blazer6]

I agree that they all are very important, but deciding which are more to your liking over others would just lead to problems where some moral authority sees which ones are a problem to keeping society safe.