What caliber gun do you carry? (Read 1836 times)

I keep a gun in my car, in my office and in my nightstand.  They give me options.  All this chat about banks and being confronted.  Your best bet is to flee and avoid conflict  ...  like an animal would.  But when that is not an option  ...  then fight is.  At that point, I want to have the option of firing my weapon.

It's all about me, my options, my rights, etc., but are those 200 million guns out there making America a safer place to live?

This debate is odd.

Do people really want to repeal the right to own firearms?  I do not understand this concept.  What's the problem with people legally owning firearms?  If you really want to repeal the right, you have a course of action: change the Constitution.  All the legislation that people try to get enacted is really nothing but an end run around the Amendment.  The Constitution states that we have the right to bear arms.  Regardless of the initial reason for it, it is clearly stated.  If you don't like it, lobby for a Constitutional amendment.  Anything else is just pissing in the wind.

As for all the safety arguments and whatnot, the problem is that both sides engage in nothing more than visceral imagery designed to provoke emotional gut reactions.  How you react is going to mostly be based upon your personal experiences (or lack thereof) with weapons and violence.

I agree that the great majority of people should not own firearms.  They are not mentally, emotionally, or spiritually prepared for the responsibility.  I believe that if you own a weapon, you need to be prepared to use that weapon with deadly force, that you will draw the weapon only when you intend to end a life (excluding target practice/training, but these situations should instill this concept).  The ultimate purpose of a firearm is to fire projectiles.  The ultimate purpose of those projectiles is to put holes in a target.

Most people have neither the requisite training, nor the appropriate mentality, to use a firearm.  However, that does not mean a person should somehow be prevented from owning one.  The argument that the wide availability of firearms makes them so available to criminals is only partly right.  The underlying issue is how easy it is to illegally obtain a firearm, and to use one in the commission of a crime.  If we had a higher success rate in solving and prosecuting crimes, we would probably not be having this conversation.

Instead of debating whether people should be allowed to own weapons and whether the ownership of said weapons hurts or helps society, let's look at the underlying causes of criminal behavior that tend to promote violence and firearm crimes.  Let's focus on providing more opportunities to youth that keeps them off the streets and out of gangs.  Let's focus on teaching self-discipline to children, and how to be polite and respectful of one another.  Let's focus on giving people a future that doesn't rely on illicit behavior by making the choice we want them to make more attractive than the criminal one.

Or, we could just debate the use of tools, and whether people should be allowed to use certain tools or not, and continue to ignore the real problem.

Scout, I disagree that the main reason most people should not be gun owners is simply their incompetence at handlling them.  I believe that most situations, arguments, conflicts, even protecting oneself or one's property does not require the use of deadly force.  And increasing folks ability to do so along with arming them will just lead to more senseless deaths.

I do know some folks who were victims of purse snatchings, mugging with beatings, but I don't believe they should have killed their attackers.

Scout, I disagree that the main reason most people should not be gun owners is simply their incompetence at handlling them.  I believe that most situations, arguments, conflicts, even protecting oneself or one's property does not require the use of deadly force.  And increasing folks ability to do so along with arming them will just lead to more senseless deaths.

 

I do know some folks who were victims of purse snatchings, mugging with beatings, but I don't believe they should have killed their attackers.

Back to the OP - should a teenager have been shot four times because he was harassing a jogger?

 

 

  If you really want to repeal the right, you have a course of action: change the Constitution.  All the legislation that people try to get enacted is really nothing but an end run around the Amendment.  The Constitution states that we have the right to bear arms.  Regardless of the initial reason for it, it is clearly stated.  If you don't like it, lobby for a Constitutional amendment

We've had 200 years of supteme court rulings that modify and expand upon what's in the constitution. That's one of the great things about it- it can respond to things the framers could not have possibly known about- the flexiblily keeps it current and vital. Didn't we learn that in high school civics?

.

 I tried to warn you.

The second amendment gives the right to "the people" to bear arms, a well regulated militia being necessary. Up until a couple of years ago, this was not interpreted as a right of individuals to own and bear arms, but instead as a right extended to "the people" as such. Essentially, it was read as an amendment that tried to ensure that the military was subject to the will of "the people" rather than the profit motive or private agencies. 

In the last couple of years, heavy lobbying by gun vendors on behalf of their desire to sell guns to as many individuals as possible influenced the conservative members of the court to reinterpret the second amendment as granting a right to sell arms to private individuals. This decision overturned centuries of precedent and ignores the fact that "the people" has always been a concept that referred to the public democratic will of the citizenry as a whole and never to private individuals.

I own guns and even shoot them, occasionally, when I go hunting with my grandfather. I do think that the gun industry ought to be more closely regulated, a well-regulated milita being necessary to the maintenance of the public order. Giving everyone guns is the opposite of "well-regulated."  As I read the 2nd amendment, it sounds to me that proper application of the 2nd amendment ought to be to democratize the military and make it more subject to the public will. This would include measures like re-instating the draft, nationalizing weapon production, ensuring that the profit motive and the war-making motive were separate, etc.

Yes, I know that many of you disagree with this.

Up until a couple years ago, the Supreme Court had never heard on the specific issue.

 

Whether the justices based their opinion on their own well-thought analysis of the issue, or were simply slaves of the firearm industry, you really have no way of knowing.

You are right; I shouldn't have painted them in that light.

The reasoning of the majority in that 5-4 decision was that really there is no "people" as such to whom the right should be granted. "The people" is just the collection of private individuals. It's a reasonable argument. I disagree with it, of course. As did 4 others on the court.

It's not true that the Supreme Court has never had to interpret the 2nd amendment before. Obviously each case is unique, but interpretation of what is different in each case depends on drawing from prior case law. (At least that's what they tell me. I'm by no means a legal expert.)