I am a Canadian but I follow American news for obvious reasons.
I could not help but notice the increase of school shootings being reported.
I am just curious what you men have to say about gun or weapons in general.
This is not to discuss so much the second amendment as it is to have you say what you think of arms.
I myself detest guns. I hate how some random street punk can kill an upright and great man at the pull of a trigger. It simply upsets me.
Before when one wished to kill someone else, poison and such may have been used, but combat was primarily up close and personal with melee based weapons.
I have a passion for melee weapons and the arts that accompanies them. Centuries have been spent in order to perfect various forms of martial arts. The human body, the movements, the elegance, the power and the speed. They're all so beautiful to me. That is why guns upset me, because a random punk can send a practitioner of one of these arts with a finger movement.
I realize that a similar argument would be that a simple punk can kill a man with a knife.
I also realize that I am simplifying the use of a gun, and I am making it sound easy to use, but in some ways it is. If you handle a gun with skill, that's something, but a street punk can use it by aiming in a general direction and pulling the trigger a few times.
I would like to hear everyone else's input. This is just my opinion. If you wish to argue against me, I'll be happy to read it. Make sure to post your own views.
How judgmental of you...while implying others are judgemental. DoublePlusUnGood.
Also, I'm not a historian but I think many of our modern martial arts were only developed in countries like Japan that had already banned the use of other weapons. And having a punk use a simple ranged weapon to kill another man who was better trained but using melee weapons isn't new. David killed Goliath with a sling. King Henry V of England won the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 by using longbow men to kill the much better trained and armoured French knights.
My guns carry guns to protect them from other guns
They don't call 'em "equalizers" for nothing. A 98-lb woman can defend herself from a 250-lb attacker.
And they also make killing easier and less repugnant. Except . . . apparently they don't. We have to look not only to what feels right to us, but to what actually happens out in the world. And what happens in the world is that modern ways of killing people more easily have coincided with a greatly reduced murder rate.
I am a staunch advocate of people having a weapon if they so choose. If you feel like that it is not something you would make a use of then that is perfectly fine with me. I believe that there are two types of people, the "good man" who will follow the rules and leave his sidearm at home because the sign/ordinance/whatever tells him that he is not allowed to have it in a given area and then you have the "street punk/bad guy" will simply look past the sign and carry the weapon anyway.
I would encourage you to look past what the news says. American news only reports the bad stuff, because as the old adage goes "the only good press is bad press." You almost never hear of firearms being used in a good way to stop a bad guy with a gun.
I also would like to state that all the press about the "Black Rifle" the AR-15 and its variants is complete horse crap. There is no such thing as a bad gun only bad people. You can sit any AR-15 on the sidewalk and it will not do a single thing until someone touches it. Additionally you will see all sorts of people saying that no one has a practical use for 30 round clips. I agree, but it's not a matter of practicality to me. To me it is a right (sorry to bring that into it) and a matter of if I want something then there is no need for there to be something to prohibit me from that magazine.
Almost all violent crime with firearms in this country involves illegal weapons, or weapons obtained illegally. There have been some notable exceptions that have drawn much attention, but these are the very rare exception.
In my personal experience, I've used a firearm relative to a burglary. My wife and I walked in to our home to discover three young men burglarizing the house. Because I was armed, the three burglars fled out the sliding door they broke to enter, no shots were fired. All three were captured within an hour.
As to 2A questions... Only the obtuse would try to argue that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to personal use of firearms. DC v Heller and Chicago V McDonald have made it perfectly clear that personal ownership of firearms is a right, and that right may not be infringed upon. US v Miller established that the one type of firearm absolutely protected was that used by the militia. IE: Modern military type small arms. The AR-15 is a prime example. It shoots the same ammunition as the M4 and M16, it uses the same magazines and many of the same internal components. This is the ideal militia rifle, as it has excellent commonality with current issue military rifles. The AR-15 is the best selling rifle in America. Thus, it's commonality makes it immune to ban per the SCOTUS. Any ban enacted at the State or Federal level will not survive court challenge. New York's recent ban on AWs and magazines in excess of 7 round will be thrown out in Federal court. As it is, it is being ignored by 90% of NY gun owners. Even the NYS Sheriff's Association has refused to enforce the new law, declaring it unconstitutional, and therefore, they are not bound by law to enforce it. Three states have passed legislation making it a crime for any Federal police to enforce any gun ban within their state. ATF and FBI agents would be arrested for enforcing any Federal gun ban within those states. That would create (on purpose) a significant Constitutional crisis. 12 state Sheriff's Associations have declared that they would not enforce any new Federal law restricting firearms or magazine size.
Across this country, people are fed up with idiot politicians punishing law abiding citizens for the acts of lunatics and criminals. Feel good legislation for the masses who are utterly ignorant of firearms is worthless. It will not affect the crazies nor the criminals. It only hurts those who obey the law.
Many politicians are completely out of touch with the mood of the people. They cannot understand the simple physics of it. These politicians don't understand that they are alive because the people with the guns have concluded that it isn't worth shooting them.... Yet.
It is utterly reprehensible that you would include such stupid, vague threats of violence in your so-called argument. You are a boorish pig.
A threat? It's an observation.... You speak rudely out of ignorance. Reading some of your posts, you come across to me as a self-righteous piss ant. You have no idea of the level of acute anger bubbling just beneath the surface of American society. You generally don't hear of it through the mainstream media. Politicians and the media are whistling past the graveyard if they think there is not a real possibility of violence if they continue to ignore the Constitution.
Listen to how New Yorkers are reacting, then consider the far less tolerant ways of the south and southwest...
Presenting an argument is fine. Threats of violence are not. Take that trash somewhere else, better yet keep it in your head.
You really are a thickheaded youngster, aren't you?
Trading argument, reasoning, and evidence for ad hominem ... hmm no I'm not in the mood for this.