America, sometimes I despair of thee.

[princealbertofb]

0341FO, you are one of the people who've been trained, and probably you are therefore much more careful about what you do with guns... but the kids who are going into schools shooting their mates don't have any of that training. It seems to me that's precisely what's missing. The training, the when-to and when-not-to that is completely lacking. Probably that's one of the reasons why the Swiss can bear arms and not use them. They've been trained in their compulsory military service. The only time I ever needed to handle a gun was when I was in my military service. I never wanted to have to touch one again. But at least, if I had to, I'd know what dangers come from it.

[747XL29]

I agree with allot of what you are saying "prince" as our country has moved closer to urban centers there has been fewer and fewer young people that grow up being taught by their parents about gun use and safety in rural areas. There is a huge shift of the population to the suburbs and cities due to economic changes over the years.

Back in the 60's & 70's and even the 80's most kids were exposed to these things in a respectful safe manner and passed that on to their own. We also had a much larger portion of the population that served in the military, even after the draft, not so much now. At that time one of the largest non-controversial sporting, gun safety instructional organizations in the US used to be the NRA. They lobbied quietly for some good things back then. Now they are demonized, sometimes their own fault, sometimes simply pure propaganda.

I do respect others views here, UNTIL those views result in government policies affects my personal property and protection rights. Many people here see it the same way as it usually results in law abiding people having more and more freedom removed and the criminals ignore it.

[Arkansota]

I was just about to post this as well. That amendment was written so the general public could form a militia for defense against invading forces. Not for the general public to stockpile weapons for personal use.



In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”.

How can they form a militia if they cannot acquire guns as individuals?

[Arkansota]

How about a compromise- You're allowed to have a gun as long as you agree to pass a gun safety training course.

[nfisher1226]

I'm not calling those individuals who own firearms extremists. I'm also not calling the defense of the right to own firearms extremist, so far as it is being espoused by people who take a more thoughtful stance and listen to other viewpoints.

However, whenever someone proposes any type of registration of firearms a certain element comes out of the woodwork in droves. The same element often cries wolf over limiting fully automatic and assault weapons. They literally shut their ears to any suggestion of regulation. Regulation does not equate with disarmament. Regulation is about putting some sanity checks in place.

Are there those who want to completely disarm the populace? Yes there are. I also label them as extremists.

I'm also not in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment. I tried to point out that is could possibly be done, to correct an assertion that it was a right that could never be revoked.

Further, I did my best to point out that there is a lot of leeway in the wording of the 2nd amendment, and there is a distinct issue because the intent, which is very much historically documented and has it's roots in British common law, is at odds with the popular conception of the meaning. It's not possible to know with 100% certainty what the authors of the 2nd amendment intended, but it widely accepted among those who have actually studied the genesis of the concept that our current definition of the meaning is very different than that of it's authors. And there lies what I believe is a failure of the founding fathers to clearly word the law and spell out it's intent.

And honestly, living where I do I am well versed in the attitudes of the rural populace. To call my neighbors extremists on the issue of gun rights is not at all a stretch. A significant portion of my neighbors and coworkers are basically arming themselves for armageddon. I personally know of half a dozen assault rifles owned by half that many people, just out of my coworkers on a single shift. One guy has close to 4,000 rounds stockpiled (and counting). They're mostly normal and in most ways rather intelligent, but when it comes to guns they honestly border on nutty.

I know of plenty of people who own guns and don't fall into this category. My father and my brothers all own guns. My mother owns a gun. They're pretty reasonable people. I've thought about buying one myself on a number of occasions. Part of what I'm saying is that there's a distinct element that make it an almost religious fervor which is quite scary and potentially explosive. To deny they exist is to stick your head in the sand.

Further, when someone reprints propaganda and jingoism without explaining their beliefs with logic and care they label themselves as extremists in my eyes, and I'm not going to apologize for calling them such. It's happened right here in this thread. My viewpoints, whether or not you agree with them, are and will always be supported by my careful thought and study of the issues in question. I dare to suggest the same of everyone.

[Arkansota]

A government wouldn't have to confiscate guns that people didn't actually possess. Which is the point. Not to have them in the first place. We don't have guns around here. There's no confiscation going on.

How do you deal with the guns that people already have?

[Arkansota]

Just clarifying, I do not believe in a lawless state. I believe that we should expand our police force to prevent tragedies from happening.

[HumbleTangerine]

"Guns don't kill, people kill".

While I agree with the statement, guns certainly make the process a lot easier. Let's take the topic of school shootings, for instance. Perhaps disturbed teens would release their hatred towards the world with or without guns and kill some of their classmates using knives, hammers or whatever household tools were available. With the right equipment, however, which is disturbingly accessible in America (you can buy guns and rifles at Walmart for God's sake) they're able to take several dozens of lives efficiently and easily. When simple logic fails to fall through the statistics speak clearly for themselves: there's an obvious connection between the amount of and availability of guns in a country and the number of armed, violent crimes.

[James]

Ok don't mean to piss anyone off, Gun list .300 weatherby magnum, .45 colt, browning 16 gauge, all americian 2000 9mm, m60, all locked up in a retina safe, but fully loaded, I have a problem with glass gun safes, and "lets leave it out where we can get to it mentality

[East]

Just to shed a little more light on the guns at school problem...the United States has piss poor access to mental health care and so many of the kids who take the guns to school need counseling and access to mental health care...

California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation...I will do everything necessary to insure they become even stricter.