27 shot dead in Conneticut school

[Syn7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VlxB64sLNc

[gunbeatskroty]

Actually....

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.

so...

Actually, the Supreme Court can rule whatever it wants based on the current political climate and who gets appointed there. But the main intentions of the 2nd Amendment is to enable citizens to revolt against tyrannical governments and not just for personal defense and hunting.

[gunbeatskroty]

Your police forces developed from militias.

But they are now controlled & funded by the State. The police forces can be a part of the militia, but it has always been intended that the citizens can form militias.

The difference is one is standing, the other is not. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, there were more "militia" than "police". Context matters.

What's the problem? The militia was fighting the British. Crime is less of an issue when there's a bigass war going on. Once independence was established and things settled, a police force was necessary. Who signs up? Those good with guns.

If the US decided to do harm to it's citizens and the police and military went along with it, no amount of semi auto rifles would change the facts on the ground. It would be a serious ass kicking. The only option would be to bug out and live in the forest biding your time. But these days it would be like a flies on a cows ass.

Nope, there would be mass defections among the Police and Military. People will pick sides. And insurgents have proven to be more than effective since Vietnam all the way up to now in Iraq and Afghanistan I & II.

That being said, if the gov did become "tyrannical" many police and military would choose to side with the people. Then you could access real weapons.

Then why did you post the above for?

Why not have a militia armory? Just keep them there. Then you can have the good weapons when you need them.

Yea right, make it easier for them to take it right?

For the record, I am not about banning guns. I own guns, built guns, modified guns myself. But then I don't live in a place with the kind of problems you guys deal with. Proliferation will never be the answer. Sensible controls are more than reasonable to ask for. Especially to a culture that pimps out their values so much.

Part of the price that we gladly pay for living under the US Constitution.

[gunbeatskroty]

Ok, i get ya.

But I mean, the citizens weapons are not comparable to the army.

Man, tell that to the turds in Afghanistan and Iraq. They haven't quit yet with their AK's and crap vs. the most powerful army in the world, for over 10 years now.

And if something were to kick of that badly you can bet that some of the Army and police would defect to the side of the citizens anyway, which would be more useful than a few pistols.

There would be mass defection, that is certain. And US citizens used to be able to buy AK-47's for $300 a few years ago. They're just much more expensive since Obama got elected.

I mean, do you really think everyone owning a gun is gonna prevent tyranny?

You're China, so it's probably really difficult for you to understand what freedom is. But just look at how bad the Japanese raped your people during WWII. Think another Hitler can't emerge?

[Syn7]

But they are now controlled & funded by the State. The police forces can be a part of the militia, but it has always been intended that the citizens can form militias.



What's the problem? The militia was fighting the British. Crime is less of an issue when there's a bigass war going on. Once independence was established and things settled, a police force was necessary. Who signs up? Those good with guns.



Nope, there would be mass defections among the Police and Military. People will pick sides. And insurgents have proven to be more than effective since Vietnam all the way up to now in Iraq and Afghanistan I & II.



Then why did you post the above for?



Yea right, make it easier for them to take it right?



Part of the price that we gladly pay for living under the US Constitution.

Sure.


Your culture is sick. Until actual facts replace theological ideology and people realise they are already under attack by their own "elite" and actually do something about it, gun crime is a minor issue. Deal with the other two and the gun thing will sort itself out.


Again, I don't have issue with people having guns, I just think they should be qualified to handle them properly. Being an american doesn't mean you will behave responsibly with firearms. Your problem is out of control. You wanna talk about freedom? There are a handful of other countries that enjoy just as much freedom as the US and DO NOT have these same issues. You guys act like the US constitution is the only document that guarantees freedom in this world. The US has nothing that these other countries don't have. Nada.

Anybody with half a brain that wanted a gun for safety would jump at the chance to receive proper training. If you were truly concerned with liberty, same thing. But then these days taking shortcuts seems to be typically american. Get guns and that will solve your problems. Smooth.

You mention groups like the Taliban, look how well that's going for them. And they actually do have some training. Not very good, but considerably more than the average toothless redneck building an armory in his doomsday bunker.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Note the conditions though. Like Canada, you need a permit. To get a permit you have to qualify. To qualify you have to jump through a few hoops. The conditions under which their guns may be stored, transported and carried are quite strict. And that is for privates. The gov issue weapons are distributed to a trained militia and are subject to inspection 24/7. The penalties for illegal ownership or improper use/storage of a gov issue weapon can be quite severe.

We also have to note that Switzerland, like Canada, has a VERY different gun culture than the US. Compared to the swiss, the US are literally cowboys. And I don't mean that as a compliment.

There are also other factors that reduce their murder rates. Crime rates in general. They have a great education system, most people have reasonable access to post secondary education. The swiss have a better GDP per capita. The list goes on. They are in a better position to succeed in MANY MANY ways.

Let us compare. In the US almost any moron can buy a gun or have one bought for them. They are proposing teaching "competing theories" in school that are PROVEN false. Post secondary tuition has TRIPLED in a very short time. Man, the list goes on. But I think I have made my point.


We can use switzerland as an example, but then we have to make note of all the other things they are doing as well. SUre, they have lower gun crime, but to say it is a direct result of gun ownership is oversimplifying the issue.

No doubt.
The point being that guns and gun ownership isn't really the issue.
The issue is RESPONSIBLE gun ownership and the problem in a culture that tends to believe that guns solve problems.

[RenDaHai]

Man, tell that to the turds in Afghanistan and Iraq. They haven't quit yet with their AK's and crap vs. the most powerful army in the world, for over 10 years now.

There would be mass defection, that is certain. And US citizens used to be able to buy AK-47's for $300 a few years ago. They're just much more expensive since Obama got elected.

You're China, so it's probably really difficult for you to understand what freedom is. But just look at how bad the Japanese raped your people during WWII. Think another Hitler can't emerge?

I'm English, i just go to China for Chan and Kung Fu and the like.

Look, I can see there would be value in citizens having guns if America was under the threat of invasion. But that is not gonna happen.

In terms of tyranny from within, either you will have all out civil war in which case you don't need your guns 'cause you will have military support, OR you have the situation where there are just a few 'freedom' fighters, 'rebels' like the IRA was in the UK.... Terrorists. In this case, you are in the wrong and against the wish of the masses, so the best way is to use political measures to get your opinion known. Not your guns. Besides the fact that guns as we have seen would not be as useful to you as improvised explosives and the like.

I really don't understand what you think will happen. The UN is not going to invade rural Nebraska....


What is it that you think will happen if you don't have guns?

[RenDaHai]

So there is alternative for personal defence with some form of Non-lethal firearm.

For Hunting you want guns designed to kill animals, not guns designed to kill humans.

Guns are not gonna protect America from tyranny within. That is a very unrealistic view.

So why have guns?

Then we have the counter argument? Why not? Guns don't kill people, people kill people, solve the social problems and we don't have murders......

This is an interesting position, but does anyone really think we can change things that way? Seriously? I mean, Seriously? The solution is SOLVE THE WORLDS SOCIAL PROBLEMS IS EASIER THAN BANNING GUNS?....... no, no its not.


There are always gonna be irresponsible people. Always. Guns allow people to kill on first impulse, without getting into a rage, without premeditation. They are too powerful a thing.

But criminals will still get guns and we won't have defence.... No, it will be much harder for criminals to get guns too. Criminals can still get you if they really want to, they can now, what if 5 showed up? What use is your gun then? Do you have your gun on you at all times? Is it only home invasion you worry about? Aren't there other security measures you can take? Does anyone seriously think that if you banned guns suddenly criminals would rule? Doesn't happen in the rest of the civilised world......


Imagine an two nightclubs..... One where the bouncers check people for weapons before they go in, the other guns, knives and all things are allowed. Which club would you go to?

[David Jamieson]

Actually, the Supreme Court can rule whatever it wants based on the current political climate and who gets appointed there. But the main intentions of the 2nd Amendment is to enable citizens to revolt against tyrannical governments and not just for personal defense and hunting.

No dude, that is your interpretation which quite frankly is trumped and triple trumped by the supreme court's interpretation.

Rule of Law is where it's at.

[pazman]

Actually, the Supreme Court can rule whatever it wants based on the current political climate and who gets appointed there. But the main intentions of the 2nd Amendment is to enable citizens to revolt against tyrannical governments and not just for personal defense and hunting.

Nope, look up common law, our rights that are protected in the Constitution are "pre-existing" and are based on traditions as old as history. The main intention of 2nd amendment is NOT to keep a check on a tyrannical government (though it does do that), but is deeply connected to national security and securing property rights. It was also never intended for citizens to privately own military grade weapons, nor was it ever okay for you and your friends to march around with your guns as a fake militia.

[pazman]

...stuff...

I've read what you've had to say. Now look at this and prepare yourself to be corrected:

[Lucas]

I can see that you are a true american patriot. So am I.

See:

[Syn7]

But he's not white? I'm confused???

[Lucas]

I understand.