The Whole Gun Debate Deal

cobra_commanderThe past 15 years should indicate the ability of a small minority of lightly armed individuals can do to hamstring the strategic intent of the worlds most powerful military force.
If there was a people vs THEGOV conflict, the U.S. Government and thus the Military could not afford to be as aggressive as we have been in Iraq and Afganistan. they would loose their credibility as the government of the United States.

that is all beside the point since the biggest barrier between an authoritarian government take over is the U.S. Army. our loyalty lies with the U.S. Constitution, not the executive, legeslative, or judial branch.

That hat all said, 99.9% of the U.S. Military is in favor of reducing barriers to civilian gun ownership.

The 2A makes no mention of 'reasonable.' You can think it is outdated. I can think the 3A is outdated. Doesn't give me the right to show up, take over your house and use it to quarter soldiers. Have breakfast ready at 0530...

If you want to ammend the Constitutio w/ regards to the 2A, there is a proces. Go for it. Good luck amending the Constitution in a manner that reduces the rights of the citizens.

theabortionatorYou got the people who "A gun saved my life" then the people "A gun ruined my life".

If I had had a gun we'd all be fine. If I hadn't had a gun we'd all be fine.
I say they just put yes and no in a hat and draw a winner.

YOLO

las.Or you could just look at the rest of the civilized world and emulate their standards and cultures on guns. We're all doing great over here

Chronic_we would be the first ones to tell the government to fuck off if they ever sent that order down.

Chronic_i didnt read more than the first page. however.

its a constitutional right to be able to own weapons. as a US citizen you should never have to worry about that. regardless if you support guns or not.

its not the military you would be fighting if the government came to get your guns. As an infantryman in the Marine Corps I can tell you right now we are all a bunch of gun loving red blooded americans who enlisted to defend the country and its people. not help the government rule with an iron fist. we would be the first ones to tell the government to fuck off if they ever sent that order down.

so yah.

1. Gun ownership is your right.
2. Dont fear the military. we are normal people with families and hobbies as well.


3. if you like guns awesome, if you dont than cool, and if someone abuses their right to have one than punish that person not the majority.

californiagrownWhat is the rationale behind the right to bear arms nowadays?

californiagrownIf we shouldn't fear the military or the govt then the entire reasoning behind the 2nd amendment is outdated and not applicable.


Guns, when used safely, are essentially very deadly fireworks- loud explosive things used for entertainment.

When used wrong, extremely deadly weapons used to cause fear and violence.

What is the rationale behind the right to bear arms nowadays?

J.D.I believe it is something along the lines of "some people really like guns".

cobra_commanderThe long standing American culture of individualism. What has defined America since colonization from Europe is a belief in the right of the individual. It has been the motivation for immigrants to move here since the 17th century. Here, in what is now the United States you will be judged on your actions, and your actions alone. We will not judge you for the crimes of your father (re: Corruption of Blood), nor brother, nor neighbor. Nor will we give you undue credit for their actions or position either.

Sure, we have erred away from this creed throughout our history (Japaneese internment comes to mind). We have however, made a constant effort to return to that ideal.

It seperates us from other cultures.

In other words, someone else commuting a crime with a gun does not provide a justifiable argument for restricting the rights of others.

And the 2A does not restrict the the use to defending the freedom of the state against an oppressive government (foreign or domestic). I think it is reasonable to assume that a free state is a short way of saying an individual's life, liberty, and persuit of happiness. The are obviously entities other than a rerognized government that can act to deliberately deny individuals their free state. Personally owned weapons can be used to defend one's 'free state' against those agents or entities.

J.D.Interesting that whatever your political beliefs you feel that as an infantryman it's your prerogative to decide which orders you will and will not follow. Especially given that the stated reason is that it might offend your hobby. My guess is there are quite a few who would disagree with that stance...

Chronic_It's called lawful and unlawful orders. Also servicemen are sworn to protect the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

And to California I said the military nor the government.

Nice try though.

mirozCobra, JD, cali, Chronic, etc - how do you guys feel about the legalization of drugs? Marijuana? And others (a la Portugal)?

californiagrownHow's the govt gonna get me if everyone who was or is in the military revolts against the govt?

Food for thought.

californiagrownNot a huge fan. I'd rather have it be criminalized.

Chronic_But what about every other thing in the world that can kill people? Knives, cars, I mean I hate to use it but skiing.

Chronic_Don't know. Does it really matter? Whys it such a big deal to you why someone wants a gun and what their reasoning is? It's a constitutional right. There's no fine print there's no hidden meaning. That's what people don't get. There is no argument. It's such a straight forward statement.

You use safety. But what about every other thing in the world that can kill people? Knives, cars, I mean I hate to use it but skiing.

Come on. It's a person's responsibility to be safe with a gun just like every other item and activity in the world.


Have you ever done research on how many assaults, murders, home invasions, etc have been prevented by gun owners?

mirozThe reason I ask is because doesn't the "personal responsibility" argument apply to drugs as well? If so, it seems like you're pretty consistent.

nocturnalSo just out of curiosity if someone wants to buy a gun to commit harm to others. You think you he has the right to own that gun as an American?

californiagrownYou make terrible arguments, really. Every intelligent pro gun advocate cringes when people like you speak on the subject.


I've never said one way or the other what i think should be done about gun ownership haha.

I just said the rationale for the 2nd ammendments creation hasn't applied to our society for a century or more.

People like guns for the recreation of shooting and hunting. They don't own them for the reasoning that the 2nd amendment was created.


Like I said before, the debate should be: "is the recreation- worth the danger?"

californiagrownYou make terrible arguments, really. Every intelligent pro gun advocate cringes when people like you speak on the subject.


I've never said one way or the other what i think should be done about gun ownership haha.

I just said the rationale for the 2nd ammendments creation hasn't applied to our society for a century or more.

People like guns for the recreation of shooting and hunting. They don't own them for the reasoning that the 2nd amendment was created.


Like I said before, the debate should be: "is the recreation- worth the danger?"

Chronic_Sorry for being such a terrible debater. Please let all of your experts on the situation know I apologize for my insolence. Forgive me your majesty

Chronic_Actually. I'm sorry. Now I'm being a dick. I'm just gonna leave. This argument will never be solved. This is childish and NS is not the spot to have heated debates

californiagrownYeah, take your ball and go home. That'll show em!

Chronic_Haha okay bud. Congrats on your Internet "victory"

J.D.Interesting that whatever your political beliefs you feel that as an infantryman it's your prerogative to decide which orders you will and will not follow. Especially given that the stated reason is that it might offend your hobby. My guess is there are quite a few who would disagree with that stance...

californiagrownThis is really what it comes down to.



Yeah, that's an incredibly outdated pov, and simply an argument conjured up because its defensible. That is not the heart of the issue for 99%. The real reason is people like them for the recreation- whether that's hunting or feeling the kick and watching bottles explode out in a field somewhere.

The question is- does the recreational value of guns outweigh their safety concerns?

mirozCobra, JD, cali, Chronic, etc - how do you guys feel about the legalization of drugs? Marijuana? And others (a la Portugal)?

cobra_commanderAs a commissioned infantry officer I am expected to use my judgement in carrying out, or disobeying orders. While my CoC is the President, my commission and rank is granted through an act of law passed by Congress.


Recreational value has nothing to do with it. I don't view the argument as outdated. It represents the intent of the current U.S. Constitution. A living document that was designed from the get go to be updated. I have mentioned it before in this thread. If people feel that a part of the US Constitution is outdated, they can adjust it through an additional Ammendment. Keep in mind that the majority of Constutional Ammendments were not included in the original document.

As it is, I will take the current version of the constitution to be very much 'up to date.'



Good trap!
That is an excellent discussion in its own right.
first and foremost it is not a right protected under the constitution other than to say that one can make a case that it's legalization should lie exclusively with the states.

We have established through our history that drugs are treated on an individual and ongoing bases.
I I live in a state where Marijuana is legalized and indeed voted for that legalization. Ovwe 40 years later, and we can see that the War on Drigs accomplished little with regards to improving the quality of life for our nation's poor (whom it was designed to help). One can argue (and I do), that mandatory minimums, originally demanded by the black community leaders in NY, have done more to push young black Americans into a life of crime and inprisionment by removing adault black men from the communities.
While the war on drugs did little to break the blight of inner city poverty (drugs still came in record numbers), the war on drugs provided the funding to go after and kill the world's most evil individuals. This funding helped train and develop the units that have since moved on to fucking up the world of Islamic terrorists. While the war on drugs did nothing to help many of America's poorest, it did overall make the world a better place. I'm not going into details here but we queitly, and less quetily wenr about killing the bad dudes of the world.

Overall, legalization and exploitation (tax) lowre consequence drugs Tobacco, Alch, weed). Decriminalize possession of small amounts of higher consequence drugs. Vindictively attack large scale distribution outside of authorized avenues.

nocturnalSo just out of curiosity if someone wants to buy a gun to commit harm to others. You think you he has the right to own that gun as an American?

cobra_commanderConspiracy to commit murder is a crime. They do not have the right to commit harm to others. If you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that their intent behind owning that weapon is to commit murder you can convict them of conspiracy to commit murder.

californiagrownYou have a very black and white view of this.

If there was no constitution to uphold, what are your thoughts on gun control?

nocturnalOr just back round check them first.......

nocturnalOr just back round check them first.......

cobra_commanderGuns are best controlled with two hands.

My personal view is that humans have a fundamental right to reserve the use violence to protect our personal life, liberty and property. So long as guns are the international standard to commit violence, we should posses the right to own and be proficient with them.

This is acknowledging that throughout history there has never been government that has been able to uphold its end of a social contract to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizenry 100% of the time.

californiagrownIt sucks that your POV puts the onus on me to not only buy, but also learn how to properly, efficiently and safely use a deadly weapon if I want to be able to protect myself and my family.

cobra_commanderIs it not ultimately your responsibility to defend your self? Should you not have access to the means to do so? If you do not take responsibility for your safety who will?

Personally, I am of the opinion that if there were more people who knew how to properly, efficiently, and safely use guns, we would have much less gun related deaths, especially accidental gun deaths.

californiagrownI agree it is my responsibility to protect myself and my family.

But i would much rather defend with fists against fists. your outlook FORCES me to defend myself against guns which are far more deadly.


If we had draconian gun laws like England or China, I wouldnt have to worry about defending against guns.

cobra_commanderUnless of course, the other guy still had a gun. Which they do in China and England on occasion. You are also aware that you would have to use your fists more. Violent crime is still higher in England than it is in the US.

cobra_commanderYou can die from a club attack too, of a knife attack, or a newspaper attack, or easily from a mix of chemicals you can buy almost anywhere.

The he leveling of the playing field is good. it reduces a the potential for bullies

cobra_commanderYou can die from a club attack too, of a knife attack, or a newspaper attack, or easily from a mix of chemicals you can buy almost anywhere.

The he leveling of the playing field is good. it reduces a the potential for bullies

cobra_commanderIn other words, someone else commuting a crime with a gun does not provide a justifiable argument for restricting the rights of others.

cobra_commanderGuns are best controlled with two hands.

My personal view is that humans have a fundamental right to reserve the use violence to protect our personal life, liberty and property. So long as guns are the international standard to commit violence, we should posses the right to own and be proficient with them.

This is acknowledging that throughout history there has never been government that has been able to uphold its end of a social contract to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizenry 100% of the time.

cobra_commanderIs it not ultimately your responsibility to defend your self? Should you not have access to the means to do so? If you do not take responsibility for your safety who will?

Personally, I am of the opinion that if there were more people who knew how to properly, efficiently, and safely use guns, we would have much less gun related deaths, especially accidental gun deaths.

onenerdykidNo one needs an AR-15 for what you described- they simply want it. Owning a 9mm Glock, for example, would for 99% of these cases be more than sufficient.

JAHpowYou obviously don't know how a background check works.

That wouldn't help for future crimes. If someone with a clean record plans to commit a crime but purchases a firearm first, they'll pass the check. If they don't tell anyone or show any indication of committing a crime before they purchase a firearm then there is no way to determine disqualification.

The only way to stop that transfer is if the seller decides not to transfer for some reason.

CirilloWell other than a few high profile shootings, the overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns. So what you're proposing would solve nothing.

The worst school shooting in US history was actually carried out with two handguns, one being a Glock 19.

People who propose banning a scary looking rifle over an easily concealable handgun just prove they know nothing about guns.

onenerdykidAustralia (along with other countries) banned the sale of assault rifles

.Hugo.i dare you to try and buy an assault rifle in the us. Despite what the media wants you to believe they are very difficult for the average citizen to obtain