It's shown that while gun control will reduce mass shootings it won't reduce the number of murders so I say keep the guns because it doesn't protect anyone to remove them anyways

To remove guns from homes, you have to remove first guns from the streets

I would encourage you to focus more on actuality too. — ssu

What should I focus on?

Yet the idea that the Republic is your potential enemy and that you would get protection from having guns against the government, especially on like the US, is in my view not "healthy sceptism", but paranoia. — ssu

What do you mean "especially one like the US"?

I'm not advocating thinking, but doing. — Terrapin Station

I hear what you are saying and I understand your impatience with remaining in a 'reactive' position and you would like to move into a 'proactive' position, I get it, I do.

We have to actually make some major changes by doing something. One thing we can try is simply banning firearms. — Terrapin Station

What I am suggesting, is that you entertain that idea understanding that not everybody holds the same position as you.
I am sure you are aware that many people believe in the right to carry a firearm and their belief is just as real and just as solid as yours' is.
What I am trying to convey, that seems to keep being missed, is the emotional basis in which both perspectives can be based in.
A suggestion of "One thing we can try is simply banning firearms" is to dismiss those that are not of the same belief as you, as though those who support the right to own a firearm are being summarily dismissed.
Does it seem fair to summarily dismiss their position, which is viewed as "proactive" and tell them that the solution to our nations issues with firearms is for them to surrender their firearms and remain in a "reactive" position?

My real question is the one I asked. — tim wood

Fair enough

If you entered a place of public accommodation and saw everyone "heeled," would you feel comfortable, would you stay? — tim wood

Absolutely I would feel comfortable.

I myself would wonder what was wrong with my community that ordinary folks in ordinary situations felt the need to carry arms. — tim wood

What makes you think that carrying a firearm indicates that there is something "wrong with my community"?

I'd be inclined to think much folks were in themselves dangerous. When did a gun become a necessary adjunct of ordinary attire? — tim wood

A firearm is not a "necessary adjunct of ordinary attire" it is a choice and each person has their own individual reasons and frankly it is none of anyone else's business why they make the choice they do.
When did wearing a cross around one's neck "become a necessary adjunct of ordinary life"? I don't know but I know their right to freedom of religion protects that person's choice to wear that religious symbol regardless of my own personal choice to do the same or not.

What are they thinking, exactly? To my way of thinking an unnecessary gun is the sign of either very immature person or one with a significant personality disorder - neither of which should have a gun. — tim wood

:confused:

What do you mean "especially one like the US"? — frank

Well, you have the largest security apparatus in the West. And strongest Armed Forces.

Yes, this probably isn't the ideal time to stage a revolt.

I understand that many Americans consider owning guns, or at least having the right to, a very symbolic element of their democracy. Guns are never just guns, that´s why some barbaric countries have firearms or swords in their flags. Perceived unsafety and deterioration of order and democratic institutions lead to more people buying guns, due to the law of compensation and as a statement of your commitment with (the family level of ) society. That is why even Democrats buy more guns nowadays than in the past.
In addition to this, there arer very legitimate concerns of citizens as they become increasingly over-powered by the digital and military might of the police and army. In its turn, armed forces of order are responding to an ever greater capacity of gangs and terrorist organisations to create havoc in this super-connected and hyper-technological society.

Republicans and especially Democrats, must quit gun control as an identity and electoral weapon, and reach agreements to implement plans leading to the demilitarization of society.

In past centuries, it was common to carry weapons with you, because borders were poorly defended and crime on the streets and countryside were rife. In the Middle Ages, each town needed its own borders of stone, and kingdoms cut down woodlands because they could not keep them free of bandits and gipsies. Guns were quitted, at least in the civilized world, when they became increasingly unnecessary. Thus, the de-escalation of weaponization in society can only work as part of a greater plan to build safe urban environments where citizens´ rights are protected and there are no safe havens for crime and terror.

What I am suggesting, is that you entertain that idea understanding that not everybody holds the same position as you.
I am sure you are aware that many people believe in the right to carry a firearm and their belief is just as real and just as solid as yours' is.
What I am trying to convey, that seems to keep being missed, is the emotional basis in which both perspectives can be based in.
A suggestion of "One thing we can try is simply banning firearms" is to dismiss those that are not of the same belief as you, as though those who support the right to own a firearm are being summarily dismissed.
Does it seem fair to summarily dismiss their position, which is viewed as "proactive" and tell them that the solution to our nations issues with firearms is for them to surrender their firearms and remain in a "reactive" position? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I'm not at all talking about a right to bear arms though. I'm not stating any belief at all about that.

What I'm saying is akin to this: let's say that we have an acidic solution and we want to make it neutral. But let's imagine that we have no idea what will make the solution less acidic. So I'm advocating experimenting --let's try doing x to the solution. If that doesn't make it less acidic then let's try y. Just keep experimenting until we get the results we're looking for. The thing is that we have to actually start experimenting to get the result we're looking for.

Absolutely I would feel comfortable. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Any weapon? Do you draw the line anywhere? And, are such things necessary in Ariz.?

Disarming the public would be a bit of a nightmare.

I understand that many Americans consider owning guns, or at least having the right to, a very symbolic element of their democracy. — DiegoT

I would emphasis the part "very symbolic" as it has far more to do with symbolism than anything else.

In addition to this, there arer very legitimate concerns of citizens as they become increasingly over-powered by the digital and military might of the police and army. — DiegoT

The fear that Americans have of their own government is perhaps something very unique considering the US is a Western democracy. So either people fear Obama taking away their guns and turning the US socialist or Trump turning the US away from a democratic republic to corrupt fascism. In both cases there isn't much trust on the institutions of the Republic.

I am sure you are aware that many people believe in the right to carry a firearm and their belief is just as real and just as solid as yours' is. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

"Just as real and solid," really? Not a continuum here but some absolute value? And if it is, what makes it so?

And if so and something makes it so, is it wise? What do soldiers do with their weapons? They practice with them, they maintain them, and they secure them. Not each soldier securing his or her own as he or she cares to, but securing them in a place of general securement, according to general rules for the storage of those weapons. And secure means secure, not just in the back of someone's closet or a gun rack somewhere.

In a safe? When the bad guys come, do you ask for a couple of minutes to open the safe?

The point is that language around gun rights and ownership is simply language on a holiday that doesn't stand scrutiny. But for the folks who can't see that, I'm willing each be permitted ownership without restriction of either of a musket or a flintlock rifle.

The second amendment is not difficult. Just say what is there instead of preconconvied notions. A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people, shall not be infringed. Well regulated meant something that works properly at the revolutionary time, as they would say to clocks that kept precise and true time that they were well regulated. Militia than actually meant adult white men that would be able to call to service in an event of an invasion or rebellion. The being necessary part was detailing the first part as to what is.

The right of the people is the interesting part because it written in a way where the right was already there before it talks about. To keep and bear arms does not require revolutionary dictionary or grammar understanding. Keep means to have and bear means to be in active possessions Arms meant any weapon that may be used against the enemy and since it gives no condition, you do not need one to keep and bear one. The shall not be infringed part is the mandate on the amendment with regard to people in keep and bear arms.

An example of the structure in modern time would be ," a well informed public, being necessary for a civilized society, the right of the people to spread true information, shall not be infringed". It is important to know that there were arms regulation at the founders time, but this was at the state level where you certain hand guns restricted and canon size having laws. The first 10 amendments apply to the federal government only than as Barron v. Baltimore says. But since the 14th amendment made a majority of rights in the 10 amendment applicable to states.

The regulation would technically be unconstitutional, but the courts would not risk today's weapon with no regulation. Reading the federalist papers would help give context to the founders reason for citizens being armed. Oh, another proof against the argument about arms being for military purpose is a draft of the second amendment that the founders made but discarded for the one we have said" a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, for the common defense, shall not be infringed".

Hi! Anyone in favor of the 2nd Amendment please kindly take a gun and shoot yourself! Thanks!

It ain't gonna get amended @Maw, can we get over that already and seek alternatives to the issue?

Guns are for the cowardly and faithless. Gun bans are for the cowardly and faithless.

It ain't gonna get amended Maw, can we get over that already and seek alternatives to the issue? — Wallows

Ah damn, you're right. No other countries have done this.

Guns are for the cowardly and faithless. Gun bans are for the cowardly and faithless. — Merkwurdichliebe

Fuck yeah dude, legislation that will ultimately decrease homicides, suicides, and obviously school shootings etc. is super cowardly. Instead, let's train students to fight school shooters, even if it costs them their lives. That's the definition of brave!

Fuck yeah dude, legislation that will ultimately decrease homicides, suicides, and obviously school shootings etc. is super cowardly. Instead, let's train students to fight school shooters, even if it costs them their lives. That's the definition of brave! — Maw

Did I not just qualify them all as cowards? You are seeing words, but not reading them.

Legislator=brave. :rofl: :cry: :rofl:

What about the inner cities, where gun violence has been a reality for over a half century. Were those guns purchased legitimately by means of legislative procedure? NO. But a few white communities are affected over a couple decades, and suddenly gun control becomes an issue. Go figure.

Ah damn, you're right. No other countries have done this. — Maw

'Murica ain't 'any other country' if you haven't realized by now.

@Maw

A present for you:

It's shown that while gun control will reduce mass shootings it won't reduce the number of murders — khaled

Where is this "shown", please?

Does it seem fair to summarily dismiss their position, which is viewed as "proactive" and tell them that the solution to our nations issues with firearms is for them to surrender their firearms and remain in a "reactive" position? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, it doesn't. But there is a real live fact here, hidden amongst the emotional stuff: if there are no (available) guns, no-one will be harmed or killed by guns. This simple fact cannot be denied, no matter that the issue is more complicated than just that.

The rifle used in the Garlic Festival shooting was legally purchased in Nevada. One of the victims who sadly died was a six year-old boy.

It would appear that lawmakers (in the US) are content to let the plague of gun violence rage, so long as the people who own them keep paying them to refuse to pass gun-control laws, and presumably for as long as no one is shooting them....

Hmm.

The rifle used in the Garlic Festival shooting was legally purchased in Nevada — S

I didn't hear about the garlic festival shooting. Was the perp a vampire?

Twenty people were killed in a shooting at an El Paso shopping center on Saturday, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said at a news conference.

More than two dozen were injured, he said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/03/us/el-paso-shooting/index.html

Make America Great Again!!!

:vomit:

So to start off I, I have personal experience with the military of the United States of America. I am not stating any sort of affiliation with any entity, and my opinions are my own based on my background with weapons. I am trained in the combat arms profession. Though not a particularly liked by most people, I believe my knowledge lends credibility to what will be said.

The purpose of the second ammendment was to allow the civilian population the same access to weaponry that the government has in the case that the powers of the government decide to overstep their boundaries in the eyes of the majority. An example would be the employment of Marshall law, the military used to control the citizenry.

A platoon of infantrymen is armed with 30 Rifles chambered in 5.56 with the capability to fire accurately up to 500 meters. 9 rifles with automatic fire capabilities which can be used for suppression in maneuver tactics so that the other 30 personnel can move closer with a perceived enemy pinned down by coordinated fire. A platoon is nothing compared the amount of men the military service has.

This does not include heavier weaponry such as artillery, main battle tanks, crew-served machine guns able to accurately fire upon a target over a kilometer away. If anyone has seen what a .50 cal round can do, they will understand where I'm coming from. If you don't, simply google it if you can stomach it.

The perceived threat is the military in the grand scheme of things, NOT Joe Schmoe who became excessively upset his boyfriend/girllfriend, or even extremist group personnel. Is Joe a threat? Of course, but not as large as a threat as the government entity trying to care for me.

30 people can do massive damage to an area when the citizens do not have the same weapons and tactical knowledge when they themselves are highly trained and capable.