The Worldwide Gun Control Movement

[birdgirl73]

I'm a leftie, too, but no guns for me.

As far as others having the right to have them, I guess I think folks ought be be allowed the right to choose. I wish more people would choose not to have them, but I know that's impossible. In Texas, gun-totin' cowboys with bad cases of road rage are getting more and more common. Makes me wish for Kevlar window and body panels in my car.

[halo]

What happened when hitler disarmed all jewish residents in germany?

They died horrible horrible deaths.

Maybe if they had guns they would have been able to fight back and form a resistance.

The same thing happened in The Soviet Union and China.

I do NOT want that happening in america. That is why I am pro gun.

If there were no guns in the whole world and no police or militaries had them then i wouldnt really care. But the American Citizens must be allowed to form militias. That is the purpose of the 2nd ammendment, to prevent what happened in the colonial days from happening today.

[Breukelen advocaat]

If there were no guns in the whole world and no police or militaries had them then i wouldnt really care. But the American Citizens must be allowed to form militias. That is the purpose of the 2nd ammendment, to prevent what happened in the colonial days from happening today.

The Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

With regard to guns, what exactly "happened in the colonial days" that you want to prevent from happening today?

I may be wrong, but I interpret your comment as a suggestion that England forbade the ownership of guns by the colonists, and that this was a cause of the Revolution. No such ban ever occurred. Guns were necessary for survival in those times.

There is a big difference between gun control and outright banning of firearms. The Founding Fathers knew this, and that's why dueling was illegal - as well as other wrongful uses of guns and pistols.

[graymatter]

Makes me wish for Kevlar window and body panels in my car.

LOL... Good safety tip for liberals in Texas.

[graymatter]

[I]
There is a big difference between gun control and outright banning of firearms. The Founding Fathers knew this, and that's why dueling was illegal - as well as other wrongful uses of guns and pistols.

I heard CSPAN is gathering signatures to introduce dueling to the U.S. Congress.

[DonnieDarko]

I've never had a gun of any kind .... If I had one, I wouldn't be able to sleep at night ..... Would I shoot a 14 year old breaking into my home at night ??? Do I want one even remotely accessible to my kids and their friends ? .... or maybe a desparate alternative to a really depressed family member ?? .... I could never do it .....

That said, I believe that law abiding citizens have the right to possess guns for hunting, collecting, or self-defense.

[WalkaWalka]

I hunt with, an AK ,with a capacity clip, in the middle of the night. I have a Mosin Nagant with a scope, to hunt things from extremly long distance.
Why do I need High Capacity Clips, a scoop from which to shoot things 800 meters out, becuase its fucking fun. I shoot things at 3 o' clock in the morning becuase thats the easiest time to get them.

[graymatter]

I shoot things at 3 o' clock in the morning becuase thats the easiest time to get them.

Excellent! I shoot things at 7:09am on the freeway...

[birdgirl73]

I don't take action of any kind, from shooting to conscious thought to upright posture, at either 3 a.m. or at 7:09 a.m. I have to get my beauty sleep. . . .

[jamstigator]

The second amendment is old and needs some fine-tuning. What do they mean by a well-regulated militia? It has been proposed that they meant a state-sponsored militia, like a part-time reservist-type militia for that particular state (wherever the person lives who is part of that state's militia). If that's what they meant, then PRIVATE gun ownership isn't part of the equation at all -- you'd need to belong to some well-regulated militia.

Secondly, what did they intend with the word 'arms'? At the time the second amendment was written, they had front-loading one-shot muskets. So what they meant could have been just that, that they thought ownership of front-loading one-shot muskets was okay (if you belong to the well-regulated militia, of course). Or, taken to the other extreme, 'arms' could mean any weapon of any type, including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

As a historical fact, the one time the common man actually took up arms and used them to fight our own government in large numbers, it was the Civil War. And they lost. And we'd probably have been worse off if they'd won (a divided U.S., ongoing racism and slavery, blah blah).

As a practical matter, we made our own bed and now we have to lie in it. There are hundreds of millions, maybe BILLIONS, of guns in circulation now. It's not feasible to try any sort of gun control in the U.S. because of that. If we'd had gun control from the start, yes, we could probably be saving thousands of unnecessary deaths each year by keeping gun control. But we didn't, and now it's too late. Every country has problems. Some have endemic disease problems, some lack food, and we have high levels of gun violence. That's just a part of our national landscape now: that you are at much higher risk of being blown away by some retard with a gun than you would be in basically any other first-world country. That's bad for tourism, that's bad for the residents of this country, but it's good for the big-business gun makers, and in any case, there's really nothing we can do about it now.