A civil discourse on the 2nd amendment

Gottcha. I'm pretty sure, though, that if the posters here were proposing a nationwide ban, the discourse would be somewhat less civil. (And, I believe that there are LOTS of politicians that support take a total ban, if they could get it.)

Go Blazers

 

This is the heart of the issue. There are plenty of examples in recent history of governments registering guns, or using registration lists, to confiscate the guns. And there are lots of politicians in this country that want to ban guns. I can't fathom why you think it is impossible for that to happen here.

I found the thread where I listed a bunch of politicians that wanted to take my guns. Yeah, some are from a while ago. But, a lot of those same people are still on office, and I doubt they've changed their minds. Also, since making these kind of statements can lose votes, I'm betting there are a lot more that feel like this, then and today, that just keep quite about their feelings/desire/agenda.

This is the post from the Defending the Second Amendment thread, edited to reflect the new title requesting civil discourse:

 

Why do you think that politicians give a rip about what the people want? You don't have to look farther than the ACA to see the writing on the wall. The law only applies to the representees. It's waived for the representors. Do you believe our politicians were representing the people's interests when they decided they should be exempt?

As you point out, they are politicians. They are all about staying in office. Staying in office is easier if you don't have an armed populace.

So, if the government requires registering all the weapons, I don't think it matters whether the majority of the people want to keep their guns for not. If the politicians decide they want the guns, they will be able to take them.

I'm not saying the government WILL come take my guns. I don't really think it is likely. I'm asking why I should assist the government in doing that, IF they decide they want to? If they do decide to take the guns, it will be too late to do anything about it once they are registered.

Once registration happens, there is no turning back. Are you that confident that the government won't ever decide to take the guns? This is a decision that could take the militia option off the table for all future generations if the government ever decides to.

Further restricting gun rights will not help solve the problems that people get worked up about.

No guns allowed at the shipyard. Very restrictive gun laws in DC.

No guns allowed at Sandy Hook Elementary. High security school.

Extremely restrictive guns laws in Chicago.

I don't know, are guns allowed at Clackamas Mall?

What Difference Does It Make?

The overwhelming majority of gun owners are just everyday people who obey all the laws related to those guns. The tiny minority of gun owners that are criminals don't. A miniscule number of violent people are going to go out and kill a bunch of people once in a while. And you can't keep that from happening.

Bad people and crazy people are going to do bad things. They don't plan to live through the event, so why would they care what laws they break?

All that most of the Joe Plumber's out there want is to have people leave alone the laws pertaining to their only viable means of self defense.

Go Blazers

 

I like to post pictures of liberals and practice shooting them in the face

 

Are you my twin?! Like Danny devito?!

 

Hard to imagine they are worried about that when they treat citizens like commoners, while they set themselves up as the aristocracy. Hence, the example of the ACA wavier for the aristocracy. Do you believe that they waived the law for themselves to win votes?

The sky color must be different in the politicians' world too, no? Do you think the aristocracy waived the ACA for themselves because they think the health care it provides is a step forward for them?

I'm not trying to argue over the ACA. I'm talking about the specific provisions that allow the aristocracy to force the commoners to buy something whether they want it or not, but the 'leaders' don't have to. That speaks to the politicians do not always do what the voters want, as you suggest.

Again, do you think they did that because they think it wins them votes? Does waiving the ACA for themselves represent what you think is just and right under your sky color?

Yes, the politicians were representing the peoples' interest, or yes politicians are corrupt? If politicians are corrupt, why do you think they wouldn't try to take away our constitutional rights?

Or, it's easier, with the people disarmed to tell them that the government will do whatever they want to, and the people will have the rights they decide we deserve. Or course, the leaders will continue to have their rights, plus the right to be corrupt.

Cool beans. Look right past the evidence, and with no counterpoint to make, ridicule whatever you don't agree with.

Do you really find it laughable that the government wants to take the guns, given attempt make with HB3200 in Oregon THIS YEAR, Governor Brown vetoing radical gun legislation that banned semi-auto guns (which was passed by the Cali legislature) and the list of prominent politicians that make no bones about the fact they want to take the guns that I provided above?

That seems like the very definition of having your head in the sand.

I pay taxes because it's the law and to help support the administration and upkeep of a government that is supposed to protect my constitutional rights.
I get a driver's license because it's the law, and I need to drive to work so I can pay my taxes to a government that is supposed to protect my constitutional rights.

I went to school because it is the law, and so that I could learn stuff that would help me get a job, so I can pay taxes to a government that is supposed to protect my constitutional rights.

I'm having a hard time understanding how my bank account will help the government take my guns. As far as tracking me down, the president has already got that covered.

Given that he scans all of my e-mail, all of my texts and all of my phone conversations, then blatently lies about the protections in place to protect our privacy. I'm thinking my bank account number doesn't mean shit in the big picture of tracking me down.

Really? The government MIGHT get more authoritarian? The government is scanning all e-mails, texts, phone conversations, and GPS tracking of cell phones. The government has put drones in our skies, light armored vehicles on our streets, and continue their never-ending attempts at further infringing on the second amendment every time there is a shooting that tugs on the heartstrings. Is that not "more authoritarian" enough to concern you right now? Head. In . Sand.

I'd say militias would form wherever governments get out of control.....if the militia can arm themselves. I think militias would form is our country was invaded. Without arms, though, you are right. THEN there are no militias.

Having a gun is not *the* most important thing in my life, but my constitutional rights are in the top three. It's a shame so many are willing to risk those rights since, once gone, you won't get them back.

At any rate, I'm sad to see that worrying about how the freedoms of future generations are affected is unimportant to you. I'm glad our forefathers didn't think that way, and found it important to give us certain inalienable rights.

Seems like it's to be expected that people would get worked up when our constitutional rights are being infringed upon. Damned shame that more people don't stand up and be counted.

I guess if my sky color was the same as yours, everyone would just shut up and let the government do whatever is in it's corrupt interests.

Go Blazers

 

Has anyone ever heard of Australia's relatively recent ban on many guns after a mass shooting? It's an amazing story, and proof that having 300 million guns out there can still be handled with the right regulation and laws.

This is from CNN.com:

"In a popular tourist spot at Port Arthur, Tasmania, in April 1996, a lone gunman killed 20 innocents with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds.

"New legislation agreed to by all states and territories specifically addressed mass shootings: Rapid-fire rifles and shotguns were banned, gun owner licensing was tightened and remaining firearms were registered to uniform national standards. In two nationwide, federally funded gun buybacks, plus large-scale voluntary surrenders and state gun amnesties both before and after Port Arthur, Australia collected and destroyed more than a million firearms, perhaps one-third of the national stock.

"No other nation had attempted anything on this scale.

"In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. In the 16 years since the announcement of legislation specifically designed to reduce gun massacres, Australia has seen no mass shootings. Gun deaths which attract smaller headlines are 80 times more common, yet the national rate of gun homicide remains 30 times lower than that of the United States."

LINK.

 

Anyone thinking that banning guns will lower crime is seriously using tunnel vision. Criminals are still criminals and will get guns regardless. A crazy is still crazy and will use other methods to cause harm.

What we really should go after is the war on drugs. And when I mean drugs, I'm talking heroin, Cocaine and speed. We should legalize weed; and use the tax earned to fight the other drugs.

Take away the main revenue stream for criminals, they won't be soooo adapt to do crime.