Stephen King on US gun contols.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

So you seem to be saying that the second amendment is still important yet many people are complacent and will not take personal responsibility if this is the case then no one even if they have a firearm is going to do anything to challenge things.

In what way are/where you disenfranchised specifically?

Second Amendment will always be important. As for complacency, two give a couple general examples

- McDonalds made me fat. Really? How about you eat fewer Big Macs. Nope, not the fat slobs fault. Its McDonalds.

- more to the point, It's the police's job to protect me. Umm sure, maybe if they get there in time. However, according to the supreme cout they have no duty to protect, and odds are by the time they show up, it will be too late. There are people who seriously think calling the cops will save them. It won't.


Now, how people are, in reference to standing up or laying down, will vary depending on where they live. San Francisco? Los Angeles, New York City? Given the political demographics of these areas, they will probably roll over and take whatever the government says without challenge. Conversely, if you go to somewhere not along the west coast or the North Eastern portion of the US, you'll find people who will tell the government to get stuffed. Case in point, in Utah, every sheriff in the state except one signed this letter:

https://news.washeriff.net/open-lett...-barack-obama/

As for my disenfranchisement. I never bothered to vote to support either party because I think they're all puppets. They are full of crap, and they'll say or do anything to get into office and keep it. They want the power, and the prestige, and they aren't after the peoples best interests. So i never bothered to participate in that dog and pony show. I figured why bother? The result is the same either way. I figured, the real power in our government isn't in the voting booth, but the trail of money. Follow the money, you'll find the real power in our government.

That said this AWB issue has changed my views somewhat. I used to be more of a centrist that probably leaned to the left. However, i now find that while on many views i'm still the centrist, i lean A LOT more to the right. Particuarly where rights on concerned. I also find that ideas that once struck me as thoughts of crackpot right wing nutjobs, while still hard to swallow, i now find plausible.

Since this crap started i've Joined and donated money to the NRA. (cause like i said, in our government, money is power). I've written both my senators and my representative. Not that i think it was necessary (Utah is pro gun), but because my sense of urgency demanded that i do something. The erosion of our rights must stop. Now. Everyone has a button, or a line you do not cross, and the mine is when it hits my home directly, and my ability to defend it. I love my wife, my home, and the life were building together. In my opinion, HOME is the only thing worth fighting for, and i will do whatever it takes to defend them.

As things go, there is the Soap Box, the Ballot box, and lastly the Cartridge box. We are nowhere near the cartridge box yet, but the idea of it getting to point is no longer inconceivable to me.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Again self defense is one thing.What I am saying is that many claim that the 2nd Amendment helps keep the government in check yet the government has done many things over the years long before our times and still does and very clearly the fact the fact that some citizens are armed had no effect on their actions.So in all reality the government does not care if you have a 2n Amendment or not they will do what they want to when they want to do it and unless you have one hell of a huge army you will not stop them.

For the most part I agree, but history has also taught us a disarmed populance can fall prey to a radical government or Dictator. We may think that would never happen in the US, but we never can know for sure, so many feel an armed public is a tool that keeps our government in check.

There have been many cases of people fighting back against the govt, of course these are deemed criminals. We had a family here that refused to turn their land over to the govt claiming eminent domain, land that had been theirs for generations. They lost most of their savings trying to fight it in court, but lost. The entire family armed themselves and made it clear they would fight to the death to keep their land. Our city later decided it would build the road for the new shopping center where first proposed. Sure, something like this seldom works, if the city really wanted it, they would've took it, but this stirred up enough roar that they bowed out.

Heck, there were numerous people enraged enough at bankers getting rich when the economy failed, many stating they should be shot for making millions off the people, the reason most CEO's have numerous body guards.

I don't propose violence, but the people have in the past had to take up arms to defend themselves against out of control govt, it's how our nation was born.

The bigger concern is do you want your right to protect yourself or do you want to rely on government.

[Armistead]

Ducimus makes good points. We must remember police don't stop most crimes, they respond to it.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by spydar1959

And according to the FBI, the weapon of choice in most violent crimes last year was a baseball bat. Have not seen them go after them yet.

That's because the main purpose of a baseball bat is to propel a ball.
The main purpose of a gun is to kill people.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

In my opinion, HOME is the only thing worth fighting for, and i will do whatever it takes to defend them.

As things go, there is the Soap Box, the Ballot box, and lastly the Cartridge box. We are nowhere near the cartridge box yet, but the idea of it getting to point is no longer inconceivable to me.

Forgive me for my confusion, but you're saying that banning semi-automatic rifles, which would still leave you with the right to bear arms, pistols and hunting rifles, is a threat to your home and family? And your last sentence sounds like you're suggesting that you'll kill the guys who come to confiscate your guns, or try to kill President Obama.

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over, and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone), because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.

EDIT: And if losing your semi-auto is such an issue, why not try the above now?

[August]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

That's because the main purpose of a baseball bat is to propel a ball.
The main purpose of a gun is to kill people.

No, the main use of any item is what it is actually mainly used for. Most guns are never used to kill anyone so killing can hardly be their "main purpose".

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by August

No, the main use of any item is what it is actually mainly used for. Most guns are never used to kill anyone so killing can hardly be their "main purpose".

The biggest buyers of guns in the world are military forces, who use them either for killing or training to kill.

[August]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

The biggest buyers of guns in the world are military forces, who use them either for killing or training to kill.

There's a few holes in that idea. First off the biggest group of buyers is not necessarily most buyers and second "training to kill" is not killing and finally most military weapons are never used to kill anyone.

That's like saying that because the Air Force are the biggest buyers of Aircraft then the main purpose of Aircraft must be used for killing or training to kill.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by August

There's a few holes in that idea. First off the biggest group of buyers is not necessarily most buyers and second "training to kill" is not killing and finally most military weapons are never used to kill anyone.

OK, you got me there

That's like saying that because the Air Force are the biggest buyers of Aircraft then the main purpose of Aircraft must be used for killing or training to kill.

The air forces aren't the biggest buyers of planes, and the first plane wasn't built to kill someone.

[August]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

The air forces aren't the biggest buyers of planes,

Oh really, who has more planes than air forces?

and the first plane wasn't built to kill someone.

Maybe not but it was almost immediately marketed to the military by Wilbur and Orville Wright so the airplanes military uses must have been in their mind while they were developing it.

In fact the first airplane passenger fatality ever was Lt. Thomas Selfridge of the US Army who had been sent out to evaluate the airplane for use by the Army. This happened in 1908. Wilbur was injured but survived the crash.

With a decade the aircraft after that was being used by several nations to kill people and very efficiently so whether it was designed for the purpose or not it was what it became most useful for.

[Cybermat47]

^^^^

Can't argue with that

Still, I reckon that while banning semi-autos would make America a safer place, the better thing to do first would be to improve mental health care.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

No, the main use of any item is what it is actually mainly used for. Most guns are never used to kill anyone so killing can hardly be their "main purpose".

That's such a disingenous statement. Yes, a fork can be used as a weapon, but people buy forks so that they can be used to as a utensil to eat. A gun is a weapon; and a weapon is a tool designed to inflict bodily harm on someone or something else. What are the non-violent applications of firearms? Furthermore, the entire argument regarding the Second Amendment is predicated on the idea that the Constitution grants you the right to use these weapons to protect yourself from various persons that would wish you harm, whether it be theft of property, violent crime or removal of rights and privileges. You can't cite that and then go and try to distance the firearm from violence. It's why you have it.

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by August

Order they'll be taken:

Assault Weapons (semi-autos)
Saturday night specials (handguns)
Sniper Rifles (anything that can mount a scope)
Trench Sweepers (shotguns)

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Forgive me for my confusion, but you're saying that banning semi-automatic rifles, which would still leave you with the right to bear arms, pistols and hunting rifles, is a threat to your home and family? And your last sentence sounds like you're suggesting that you'll kill the guys who come to confiscate your guns, or try to kill President Obama.

Wouldn't the better thing be to just hand your gun over, and if there are attempts to ban hunting rifles and pistols, have a massive petition, or march on Washington to protest (not to kill anyone), because only if they were trying to ban guns outright would it be an attack on your rights.

EDIT: And if losing your semi-auto is such an issue, why not try the above now?

Not trying to answer for Ducimus here, but look at the Quote from August here. There are legitimately politicians in this country that don't want private citizens to own any firearm at all and are just waiting for the chance to make that happen. And the best thing wouldn't be just to hand my guns over for that very reason. That's why this is such a hot issue right now. That's why people are making a lot of noise over this, this is our petition.

Now about our rights being attacked (this applies to all of them not just the 2A). They won't just take it completely away at the outset. Our rights will be eroded over time. Look at the Patriot Act and the 4th, 5th, 6th amendments.

Not trying to answer for Ducimus here, but look at the Quote from August here. There are legitimately politicians in this country that don't want private citizens to own any firearm at all and are just waiting for the chance to make that happen.

You set yourself up for a fail there.
Name one politician who has said no farmer can legally own a shotgun.
The quote from august defies all logic

[ETR3(SS)]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

You set yourself up for a fail there.
Name one politician who has said no farmer can legally own a shotgun.
The quote from august defies all logic

Publicly? They won't. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some who feel that way. As for the quote from August, that's my mistake. I was referencing the part about assault weapons (semi-autos) etc.