Today the US Supreme Court decided to decide if it will strike down Washington DC’s ban on owning a gun. Not much to do with Separation of church and state — but I own a gun, in fact I once was a damn good shot. It’s a .22 — I think it’s as small as they come; a far cry from the assault weapons you can get at a gun show.Should ALL guns be outlawed? To do so would literally repeal the 2nd Amendment. If we do that, should we worry about those who wish to repeal the 1st Amendment?
cry4turtles
Me too, but that horse is out of the barn now. The military has massively more firepower than even the best-possible local militia could ever have. Having a gun, or even a bunch of guns, in the house isn’t going to protect you from the government anymore.
alatham;
The site I provided was in reference to
which I thought that I had made clear by highlighting the statement.
Your response
is a different issue. It was referring to how often firearms were successfully used for personal protection. Try to keep up.
I have this strange feeling you might also argue that the following site is biased.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83
However the studies they show have been accepted (even by the naysayers).
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.html
I would urge you to read the whole following article (I know it’s long, but it addresses a number of concerns).
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/falsepromise.htm
Since this topic seems to have nothing to do with atheism per se, I’m wondering why it keeps cropping up on this site.
If you (or others) want to keep harping on the subject, at least do some more research.
I have limited time (and access to the ‘net). bye for now
The guns aren’t there to protect the people from the government. The guns are there to keep the government afraid of the people.
Guerrilla warfare.
666,
My mistake about the link, but Anadrol did ask you specifically about concealed carry shortly before then. I think you can understand my confusion.
I also was not trying to say you’re wrong. I’m undecided about gun control, I live in Chicago where gun control laws are pretty stringent. Gun crime is definitely a problem here, but the laws have been on the books for so long that it’s impossible to say if they actually work. Until our gang problem is reduced, I’d bet the laws don’t make much difference.
Also, I would indeed say that the NRA is biased, but I’m not averse to reading their thoughts. I don’t have time to get to that article now, but I’ll read through it later if I remember.
AOL,
Well, the guberment may be afraid of the societal problems that might occur as a result of wide spread civil disobedience but, surely the guberment of the United States is well aware that it is only a question of how much force is appropriate to squash whatever civilian problems might arise.
Theoretically, the citizens could potentially surprise the guberment with a well planned and sudden surprise attack. If the initial attack didn’t work the citizens would have no hope using legal weapons.
Isn’t the whole idea behind democracy that the populace ultimately controls the government?
I realize that’s a bit idealistic, but at the very least we do have the first amendment right to petition the government. Surely that’s more effective than enacting the second coming of David Koresh?
I’m sure I’m not the only one who interprets it that way. I would’ve had refrences years ago, but I’m not a member of that organization anymore (NRA). They got way too right-wing for me.
Anyway, how do YOU (anadrol) interpret the 2nd amendment? Do you think the framers were specifically concerned about bunny-hunting? Competitive target practice? Or perhaps they witnessed enough tyranny to know that unarmed citizens are sittin’ ducks?
And yes, I am aware that the gov’t has enough fire power to disintegrate my neighborhood, and that my pee-shooter would barely be a pimple on their asses. But don’t write off community militias. If necessary, I’m sure they could be a formidable force. But not if we’re disarmed. At the very least, we would die fighting. It’s better than total submission into who knows what?
“Give me freedom, or give me death!”
Or perhaps some out there think that our gov’t would never do such a thing (tyranny). It’s 2008, it just couldn’t happen here, now. For that idea, I will refer you to a quote from Korn’s “Evolution”:
“Take a look around. Nothing much has changed.”
cry4turtles,
I would say that the framers of the second amendment had no idea of the power of the weapons that would be developed. Back then a well organized militia could very well take on the government and probably win since the technological weapons gap between militia and government would have been small.
Back then the amendment was relevant but now it makes no sense at all, a relic of a bygone era really.
So to answer your question, yes I agree the popular interpretation but given the times it makes no sense anymore.
666, at the moment I don’t have time to look at your info but thanks for the site. I will get round to it, as living in Australia most of my life under strict gun laws and then moving here is an interesting paradigm shift for me.
But if you take the emotional aspect of gun control/ownership out of the equation can you honesty say that owning hand guns or assault weapons or any cache of weapons
that goes beyond mere self defense is useful given the current strength of the US Military.
Common now don’t be so dramatic, If anything were to occur I would be moving to another country pretty quick. As your well aware you only get one shot at life so I find it hard to imagine you would throw it away so haphazardly.
It’s a good thing veterans (both historical and contemporary) don’t feel that way.
Of all the things people die for, freedom is the most deserving.
Would you say that about the war today? Do you really think they are fighting for our freedom?? When someone comes and invades the country I live in I’ll be the first to help out in the war effort. Taking the fight into another country on bad intel is another matter entirely.
Why are you even mentioning Iraq?
Is it this?
Or this?
Hmn?