why the left hates guns

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

Here too. Maybe because I don't seek trouble or feel cocksure enough to drive into the barrio/ghetto/trailer park to prove my mettle. (metal?)

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

Example: I just traveled three states, and wandered a major US city after dark with the wife and three kiddies. Number of times needed or wanted a gun? None.

guns are like condoms. best to have one and not need it, than need it and not have it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Same here. Never had any trouble.

IMO much of the reasoning for having a gun for defence can be traced to media sensationalism and overreporting of crime stories. Some very gullible people out there who will believe any guff they read or hear about via the media.

[Heracles 417]

Read post above. I support your right to bear arms, my issue is with idiots who believe a gun makes them safer. Guns do not make people safer. They are instruments of destruction. Nor is it at all likely you or anyone on VJ will be saved by possessing a gun in any of the hilarious John Wayne scenarios you envision.

Example: I just traveled three states, and wandered a major US city after dark with the wife and three kiddies. Number of times needed or wanted a gun? None.

These guys also ignore the reality that when more than one assailant has a gun, you are basically S.O.L. It's just too easy for someone to place a gun to someone's head, without even the quickest and fastest shooter being able to do a thing about it; which is how most robberies using a gun go down.

Are there scenarios where a gun can help? Of course but the reality is that the best scenario is no guns. The ultra low homicide rate in countries with gun restrictions and hand-gun bans versus those with none speaks for itself. As such, rogue civilians who intend to use violence stand no chance.

The overthrow the government idiocy is also ridiculous and irrational, considering private civilians are no match for modern armies. Even during the civil war let alone the revolution, the army used single shot riffles or canon fire. Nowadays, a single aircraft carrier could probably own the entire armies of WWII combined [allies + axis]. As such, rogue civilians with any weaponry would stand no chance.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Heracles

[slim 1,514]

What's even funnier is you saying this coming from Ohio.

Why?

My favorite was your claim that gun restriction did not work in AUS because for the first year or two after it was implemented, crime did not go down. As if guns would magically disappear or the government would search inch by inch of the country for them. Conveniently, you do downplay and ignore the 24 percent reduction over 10 years, from a rate that was already at record lows.

That would be the same reduction the US has seen without any bans, right?

Here too. Maybe because I don't seek trouble or feel cocksure enough to drive into the barrio/ghetto/trailer park to prove my mettle. (metal?)

What if you lived in one of those places?

These guys also ignore the reality that when more than one assailant has a gun, you are basically S.O.L. It's just too easy for someone to place a gun to someone's head, without even the quickest and fastest shooter being able to do a thing about it; which is how most robberies using a gun go down.

Is that how most robberies go down? Multiple assailants - all armed - and one of them has a gun to the head of the victim?

So you're saying it's better to be an unarmed victim and totally defenseless than to at least have a fighting chance? Better to be S.O.L.?

What's it like living on your knees?

Are there scenarios where a gun can help? Of course

And you decide which scenario you're going to be party to BEFORE the scenario arises.... right?

but the reality is that the best scenario is no guns. The ultra low homicide rate in countries with gun restrictions and hand-gun bans versus those with none speaks for itself. As such, rogue civilians who intend to use violence stand no chance.

It does? I'd like to remind you the "ultra low homicide rate" you're speaking of is around 1 per 1,000. The US is "super high" at 5 per 1,000. Yep, that's pretty bad. We should definitely waive our rights so we can reduce that by 4 per 1,000. That'll make a HUGE impact on our daily lives.

The overthrow the government idiocy is also ridiculous and irrational, considering private civilians are no match for modern armies.

You're assuming the modern army would be fighting. I'd like to remind you those in the army are some of the most ardent supporters of not only 2A rights, but the constitution as a whole.

Plus, there are over 80,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. who are spread between all 50 states. Even if only 1% of those were to "fight" the military would be stretched thin.

Even during the civil war let alone the revolution, the army used single shot riffles or canon fire. Nowadays, a single aircraft carrier could probably own the entire armies of WWII combined [allies + axis]. As such, rogue civilians with any weaponry would stand no chance.

All that "big technology" is usesless in a boots on the ground fight. It's not like airstrikes are going to be common in urban areas full of civilians. Do you really think the army is going to drive Strykers down Central Parkway?

And if they did..... is that going to help them gain supporters.... or make more rebels?

[The_Dude 1,142]

You haven't told me how it's wrong.

Are you saying the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee our right to reatin arms necessary to overthrow the government?

Well, lets look at the actual text of the 2nd amendment, and then the context in which it was drawn up.

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.

At the time when the 2nd amendment was written, our nation had been under the thumb of a nation with a professional, standing army. We however did not have one, nor the capacity at the time to field a professional standing army. Hence, militias consisting of every able bodied man was needed for national defense. The first part of the 2nd amendment is what makes it virtually invalid in today's society. We have the most powerful military in the world, and no need for civilian militas. Nowhere is it mentioned or even implied that the spirit of the 2nd amendment was to keep OUR government in check, or to give the people the ability to violently rise against the U.S. government, that is just your warped wet dream slim.

I tend to believe in a medium interpretation myself. But seriously, how can you justify, with actual text the need for assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols? Vigilante justice isn't legal and you don't need anything more than a shotgun or a hunting rifle for your own personal defense.

[Heracles 417]

That'll make a HUGE impact on our daily lives.

This comment was my favorite part. Do you mean impact like reducing the homicide rate? Yeah, who would want that.

[slim 1,514]

At the time when the 2nd amendment was written, our nation had been under the thumb of a nation with a professional, standing army. We however did not have one, nor the capacity at the time to field a professional standing army. Hence, militias consisting of every able bodied man was needed for national defense. The first part of the 2nd amendment is what makes it virtually invalid in today's society. We have the most powerful military in the world, and no need for civilian militas.

Also at the time when the 2A was written, the standing army was sent home. Almost every soldier in the states was discharged from service and for many, many years there was no standing army.

The fact that we have a standing army today is in direct contrast to the 2A. Just because we have one doesn't mean we need to waive our rights to be militia. If you read on, it says militia is necessary to the security of a free state. While a standing army defends a free state, only a militia - of the people - secures it's freedom.

Who is in charge of the army? The commander-in-chief is the president and he's elected "by the people." However, the people have the ultimate power to elect officials and control the government, and that power is assured through private ownership of arms. If arms are willfully given up, that power isn't retained by the people, it's borrowed from the army. The whole system then becomes "as long as our government allows us" instead of "our government does what we tell it to." Remember, it was a republic... if we could keep it.

Nowhere is it mentioned or even implied that the spirit of the 2nd amendment was to keep OUR government in check, or to give the people the ability to violently rise against the U.S. government, that is just your warped wet dream slim.

It's implied throughout. The authors had recently done just that and sought to protect our means to do so again if necessary.

They specifically used the word militia instead of army because of it's meaning. A militia is composed "of the people" not "of the government." The security of a free state is not ensured by an army, but by it's people.

I tend to believe in a medium interpretation myself. But seriously, how can you justify, with actual text the need for assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols? Vigilante justice isn't legal and you don't need anything more than a shotgun or a hunting rifle for your own personal defense.

Shall not be infringed pretty much sums it up for me. That's very simple language. To me, that means it's not up to the government to determine whether an assault rifle is any worse than a hunting rifle. It's also not their place to tell me I can or cannot have one.

Looking at it in a historical context, the militia of the day had "assault rifles" comparable to the king's troops. When you take into account the "well-regulated militia" wording, it's very hard NOT to say we should have better firepower. A well-regulated militia would be armed with arms and equipment comparable to what the military has. In those days, militias were armed through private means and/or local tax levy. Communities armed themselves - often with cannons and other military hardware that today would equate to crew-served weapons and up.

Just because we've allowed ourselves to stop doing so doesn't mean we're not protected to do it again. In fact, one could argue we have a responsibility to be doing it since it's necessary.

Not needing more than a hunting rifle or shotgun for personal defense is possibly applicable in your own home, however, it does little for the security of a free state. I think everyone should have one of each, but they definitely should have more to comply with the "well-regulated militia" portion of 2A.

This comment was my favorite part. Do you mean impact like reducing the homicide rate? Yeah, who would want that.

I wouldn't want it at the cost you're proposing. Who would trade liberty for security? Australians, apparently.

[Heracles 417]

Well, lets look at the actual text of the 2nd amendment, and then the context in which it was drawn up.

At the time when the 2nd amendment was written, our nation had been under the thumb of a nation with a professional, standing army. We however did not have one, nor the capacity at the time to field a professional standing army. Hence, militias consisting of every able bodied man was needed for national defense. The first part of the 2nd amendment is what makes it virtually invalid in today's society. We have the most powerful military in the world, and no need for civilian militas. Nowhere is it mentioned or even implied that the spirit of the 2nd amendment was to keep OUR government in check, or to give the people the ability to violently rise against the U.S. government, that is just your warped wet dream slim.

I tend to believe in a medium interpretation myself. But seriously, how can you justify, with actual text the need for assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols? Vigilante justice isn't legal and you don't need anything more than a shotgun or a hunting rifle for your own personal defense.

The 2nd Amendment also says diddly-squat about being able to use firearms against your fellow citizens.

I wouldn't want it at the cost you're proposing. Who would trade liberty for security? Australians, apparently.

I was thinking more along the lines of the majority of the first world. I am keen to see where it states in the Constitution that liberty means being able to use weapons against your own people.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Heracles

[웃 910]

There has never been one single occasion in my entire life where I have needed a gun...

However, there were 2 occasions where my life was in immediate danger, and I still didn't need or have a gun:

1) When I was 18 a friend of mine, who had a rough start in life (dad died when he was in 4th grade, his older brother who he looked up to was murdered in Detroit) was starting to lose his mind. He already did some short bids in the county jail system (90 days, boot camp, etc.). He had no place to live so he was on the east side of Detroit with his uncle. He was on felony probation, and as I stated before, he was developing some type of extreme paranoia. Anyways, to make a long story short, I went over to his house one night (he was on house arrest), and he was acting funny. He was saying hearses were driving by, weird things. He thought he had a hit on him for the things that his brother used to do before he was murdered. Well, he pulled a gun out on me and accused me of talking to Arabs about where he lived. I really thought he was gonna shoot me but he didn't.

***I guess I could have had a gun here but what was I gonna do? Pull it out and murder him in cold blood. I guess there is a 50/50 chance if I did that I would not have went to prison for life because maybe the jury would conclude I acted in self defense.

2) A couple friends of mine were at a gas station in Detroit and some kids around our age (17 or so) pulled out a little tiny 22 and robbed us for our jerseys.

***Again, maybe we could have murdered the 2 or 3 people who robbed us but it probably wouldn't have been a good idea.

Edited August 3, 2010 by Lord Infamous

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

2) A couple friends of mine were at a gas station in Detroit and some kids around our age (17 or so) pulled out a little tiny 22 and robbed us for our jerseys.

***Again, maybe we could have murdered the 2 or 3 people who robbed us but it probably wouldn't have been a good idea.

wouldn't have been murder.....

and don't underestimate the killing power of a .22

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I see some members posting here making lots of comments about liberals’ saying this and liberals’ saying that but I have yet to actually see a liberal post…

What I have seen are conservatives who are desperately trying to sound liberal. The posts are still to the right. Not as far to the right as some but still to the right. Just because they are not as far to the right, as others, does not make them liberal. Simply less conservative...

But being less conservative does not make you a liberal...

[The_Dude 1,142]

Also at the time when the 2A was written, the standing army was sent home. Almost every soldier in the states was discharged from service and for many, many years there was no standing army.

The fact that we have a standing army today is in direct contrast to the 2A. Just because we have one doesn't mean we need to waive our rights to be militia. If you read on, it says militia is necessary to the security of a free state. While a standing army defends a free state, only a militia - of the people - secures it's freedom.

Who is in charge of the army? The commander-in-chief is the president and he's elected "by the people." However, the people have the ultimate power to elect officials and control the government, and that power is assured through private ownership of arms. If arms are willfully given up, that power isn't retained by the people, it's borrowed from the army. The whole system then becomes "as long as our government allows us" instead of "our government does what we tell it to." Remember, it was a republic... if we could keep it.

Thank you for making my point for me. At the time it was written, we had no army and as such needed the population to be armed to stand in militas for national defense. Since we have had a professional, standing army for quite some time now, it invalidates the need for militias and for a well armed population.

It's implied throughout. The authors had recently done just that and sought to protect our means to do so again if necessary.

They specifically used the word militia instead of army because of it's meaning. A militia is composed "of the people" not "of the government." The security of a free state is not ensured by an army, but by it's people.

It isn't implied, and more importantly, it is not directly stated. You like to take a literal interpretation of the amendment on the "shall not infringe upon" part, yet selectively want to interpret "implied meaning" where there is none. Hypocritical don't you think?

Shall not be infringed pretty much sums it up for me. That's very simple language. To me, that means it's not up to the government to determine whether an assault rifle is any worse than a hunting rifle. It's also not their place to tell me I can or cannot have one.

Looking at it in a historical context, the militia of the day had "assault rifles" comparable to the king's troops. When you take into account the "well-regulated militia" wording, it's very hard NOT to say we should have better firepower. A well-regulated militia would be armed with arms and equipment comparable to what the military has. In those days, militias were armed through private means and/or local tax levy. Communities armed themselves - often with cannons and other military hardware that today would equate to crew-served weapons and up.

Just because we've allowed ourselves to stop doing so doesn't mean we're not protected to do it again. In fact, one could argue we have a responsibility to be doing it since it's necessary.

Not needing more than a hunting rifle or shotgun for personal defense is possibly applicable in your own home, however, it does little for the security of a free state. I think everyone should have one of each, but they definitely should have more to comply with the "well-regulated militia" portion of 2A.

Slim, as was showed before, the government has an army, they don't need 30+ year olds with beer guts to take up arms to fend off an invasion. You are misinterpreting the literal verbiage of the amendment, as well as the context and spirit of it. I'm willing to make the concession that you can't get rid of guns in this country. But you surely don't need semi-automatic pistols, assault rifles, or an arsenal of guns large enough to hold off a police siege for days on end.

[The_Dude 1,142]

wouldn't have been murder.....

and don't underestimate the killing power of a .22

QFT. A .22 may not have the power to go through and through, but it can penetrate flesh, and bounce around causing havoc for your internal organs.

[Ban Hammer 12,845]

QFT. A .22 may not have the power to go through and through, but it can penetrate flesh, and bounce around causing havoc for your internal organs.

especially them .22 stinger hollow points.