The 2nd Amendment Thread

[henry2]

the problem with a lot of the socalled stupid people there in AZ is that a bunch of stupid ones who gives it away and i dealt with those types for 6 years down in the south side and i learn one thing it that the stupids one allways stand out right before they start something

 

[epb]

Tell that to the idiot politicians in Chicago and DC with the no gun laws....some of the most violent areas in the entire world let alone country.

I'm a big proponent of the 2nd amendment and grew up using guns in KY, but I've lived in Chicago 20 years and see no reason for law-abiding citizens in the city to own guns, as they would be useless here. People have no respect for them here - I've seen some of the most careless, stupid behaviors you can imagine from Chicago gun owners. Most think simply having one makes them invincible, and they don't need to know how to shoot it, load it, clean it, keep it, anything. If I'm ever shot in Chicago, I guarantee it will be blind luck on the part of the shooter. Most of what people here know comes from movies.

 

[Matth3w]

People can have no respect for anything no matter where they live. Doesn't give the government the right to infringe on people's Constitutional rights. People don't respect alcohol or cars, and get behind the wheel and kill people all the time but that doesn't mean we need to ban alcohol and cars. I could make a laundry list a mile long of things people don't respect that get them killed but I don't have a reason to ban them.

 

[epb]

Err, drinking and driving are "banned" in most places, in that they're illegal too. And in lots of Kentucky, alcohol is banned as a matter of course.

The way I see it, a community should get to define itself. I'm for the 2nd amendment, alcohol sales, legalized prostitution, heck, even legalization of drugs. Those things won't happen until a lot more people feel the same as me, and I can live with that. If the gun laws issue really bugged me, I'd break the law or leave. No reason to re-arrange the world to suit me.

 

[Matth3w]

I understand your point about the community getting to define itself, but not at the expense of infringing on the Constitution. The Constitution overrules whatever local law they think they can make, as we saw the unConstitutional law in DC was struck down recently because of this.

Besides that, it obviously doesn't work. Washington DC with the gun law in effect was at one point the murder capital of the WORLD per capita, and that says a lot with places like Somalia and whatnot in the mix.

All strict gun laws do is affect people that would follow the law. Some idiot thug isn't going to be deterred by the gun ban because he's using it to break the law anyhow.

And while you may be correct that people are not properly trained on the use of a weapon, a thief can break into a house with a gun ban in effect and know with pretty good certainty that the people he is robbing will not have a gun (of whatever type is banned), whereas otherwise he has to at least assume that he could potentially get shot..even by someone with no firearm experience.

It's just like the whole security system sign out from of your house...you may not have a security system in place, and just have the sign...but what is a thief going to choose? The house with the sign or without? His chances are better with the house that doesn't have security and that's the same with gun toting citizens.

Many soldiers during the Revolutionary War didn't even have good training with weapons, yet the Framers felt the need to ensure that the people of this country had the right to bear arms, no matter what some stupid city decided to do. And the reason for this was that the Framers knew that the moment you disarm your citizens the greater chance of tyranny from the government with no reprecussions.

 

[epb]

And while you may be correct that people are not properly trained on the use of a weapon, a thief can break into a house with a gun ban in effect and know with pretty good certainty that the people he is robbing will not have a gun (of whatever type is banned), whereas otherwise he has to at least assume that he could potentially get shot..even by someone with no firearm experience.

If lawbreakers were worried about getting shot, no one would deal drugs; far more people are shot over that than any other criminal activity. Most kids joining gangs to deal drugs know someone that was killed or crippled with a gun, yet sign up anyway. Getting shot is an accepted risk, same as the risk of going to prison.

 

[Matth3w]

But if they had to choose between potentially getting shot or KNOW they were NOT going to get shot I think we know what they would pick

 

[epb]

But if they had to choose between potentially getting shot or KNOW they were NOT going to get shot I think we know what they would pick

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. In my experience, the risk doesn't matter - self-preservation is a low priority. People with criminal tendencies that don't want to get shot go into accounting.

 

[Matth3w]

Regardless, it's unconstitutional (as proven by the Supreme Court) to ban handguns locally. There really isn't room for debate despite any personal feelings.