I hate guns, but I don't know the motivation of a person who's breaking in to steal something. I oppose the NRA. I oppose the common incorrect interpretation of the 2nd ammendment. I oppose the personal ownership of automatic weapons. But I'd put one in someone's head if they were to break into my house at night. Killing to survive is just a part of life, and a part of natural selection. I'm not naive, I just hate guns. The moment I try to 'talk it out' with a burglar is probably the moment I'm stabbed to death or shot. I can risk my future mental health and shoot a person before I let someone in my family mourn my my passing, or worse yet, die in my place because I decided to hug a criminal at 3am.
Oh, I can't wait. Okay. Your original point in response to bigpete's post was horribly mangled if that's what you meant to communicate, but sure, you're right. An isolated increase in property crime isn't a justification for arming one's self. That's sort of irrelevant, since property crime, if unopposed, typically escalates as the perpetrators grow more brazen, but no, shooting people over stuff isn't okay. Sure, legalization of firearms does unfortunately make gun violence more likely. That's nowhere more evident than it is in the United States. I admit I'm comfortable with the approximately 30K deaths we have each year. I'd be comfortable with twice that, although I'd certainly prefer it to be less, and zero would be ideal. I don't expect other countries to adopt our policies here, but for someone who thinks we're all so arrogant, you're certainly comfortable telling us how wrongheaded our way are. But look--we have more guns than we did twenty years ago. And we have less crime. So the firearms aren't the only problem. Also, if my penis shone like a star, that would not be a bad thing that people would insult me about. It would be an awesome thing that people would envy me for. Then you are blissfully unaware of how violent the real world is. So...if an armed individual threatens an unarmed individual, an onlooker who happens to be armed shouldn't respond with lethal force against the former, because they can't be certain his or her life isn't worth more than the latter? The fact that someone is willing to violate someone else's life doesn't automatically make their life less valuable than...well, anyone else?
I would very much like you to tell me what that is, and what the actual correct interpretation is as well according to whom it is correct.
Sad subject, but this thread is full of lulz. Now excuse me while I go drive drunk and fire my Ak-47 randomly at mail boxes.
Looks like you've never actually bought a firearm, have you? Otherwise you'd know that there's a background check (NICS) involved for each and every purchase from a dealer. Those dealers, by the way, are all federally licensed by the BATFE and that mandatory check flags felons and the mentally ill.
Y'know, I missed this the first time around. Nowhere is your naivety (the sixteen comment seems to have struck a nerve, which I'm betting means I'm on point--but it wasn't meant to be an insult so much as an observation) more glaring than this comment. The wholeheartedly earnest juxtaposition of the two is just...well, I'm not gonna lie. It's precious in its idealism. So I'll be real with you. You are clearly very young, probably around sixteen. That's not an insult--we were all young once. And I'm certainly not saying that the only way anyone could oppose guns is if they're young. But you have the whole zealous single mindedness of youth right now, and it's preventing you from seeing the bigger picture--the one that encompasses the middle of the road, rather than the extremes you seem so determined to embrace. Discussing this with you now would be a waste of both our time. In five or six years, when you've gotten your teeth into the real world a little more, I'm confident you'll see that things aren't quite as simple or polarized as you seem to think they are now.
I can't speak for every state, but that's simply not true in many, including Florida and Georgia. And I'm betting it's not the case in most states, since mental illness, unless it was recorded in a criminal plea, is a medical condition protected by confidentiality laws. Besides that, how many mentally ill folks have no documentation of that fact "flagged?" You know it's entirely possible to go through life without a mental illness being diagnosed until it's unfortunately too late...right?
I believe it does come up on the check performed in PA. And come on, some people think straightening the cereal boxes on the end of a grocery aisle is a mental illness. Of course that's going to stay under the radar for a long time. Something like schitzophrenia or pedophilia though? Edit 1: According to this, I was sort of wrong about PA (the state may not report innocent peoples' health records, but it doesn't prohibit federal agents from tracking them) but you're wrong about Florida and almost 600,000 of the 5.4 million people on the blacklist are there because of mental illness. Edit 2: Further digging suggests that, supposedly, PICS (PA's version of NICS) does check mental health records. So while they don't contribute to the federal NICS database...
Some quick research shows that states apparently all use the same database, the NICS. It's a criminal background check that doesn't flag mental illness. In point of fact, I'm not aware of any database of mental illness that exists to even be searched. I think maybe you owe Seeker an apology... And okay, a dude has schizophrenia. And people notice it. And notice it and notice it and notice it...but that doesn't mean he gets treatment or has his illness documented. EDIT: Some more digging indicates that there is in fact a federal database for just that, but that critics allege it's full of holes. I know for a fact that I've treated mentally ill people without their illness ever being documented. And those are ones that actually received treatment, unlike, say, the dude at VA Tech. Or the dude in Binghampton. Both of 'em were clearly mentally ill but missed by the system.
If someone broke in your house with a shotgun, started blowing holes in everything and you end up under the bed hiding and praying, your mind will change real fast. If it's up too you to save your family, are you going to wait for the police to show up , or take them out before they make their way towards a family member or friend. More power too you if you can live a peaceful life, but it's still good to be prepared. That's a regret you can't go back on. Plus it's like a secret unwritten man rule. Cops or not, it's our man duty to protect as well. Unless you're Chuck Norris , Mr T or Atlianz, they no need guns
Bryan, Seeker's sound byte is still a moot point because we have neither a background check nor an outright ban to stop pyromaniacs from purchasing lighters or gasoline. Unless you'd like to live in a total surveillance police state, you'll have to live with the fact that somebody somewhere might someday do something that you don't approve of.
This. I've got a clean record, I pay my taxes every year. Once I move out on my own I'm going to register for a handgun license.
The correct interpretation does not grant an individual ownership of a firearm. It only grants that power to a militia(in modern terms, the national guard). It doesn't mean you have a right to own a gun. When the constitution was written, individuals did NOT have the right to own a gun and the 2nd amendment did not grant them the right to. It was only intended for emergency military bodies. That's not you or me. Regulated, in those terms, means well trained or policed. Again, this isn't you or me. It makes no mention of private ownership. It wasn't legal to privately own a gun in those days, although people did. Besides, a powder rifle isn't the same thing as a submachine gun.
What the fuck is wrong with people nowadays? The murder of Caylee Anthony, the guy who killed all three of his sisters, another person who killed his family and himself, and now this.....WHAT NEXT?! God, I hate society nowadays. Why can't everyone just get along? Now I can definitely see why so many people wish for peace on Earth.
Well, Glenn Beck is on tv claiming that Obama is trying to establish a nazi regime and take your guns away. He can be a lunatic all he wants, but the problem is that he's telling his viewers to seek retribution against the government by using firearms. He's promoting domestic terrorism and no one is trying to stop him. The NRA is also promoting racism and treason against the president in their publication and racist t-shirts. Even Obama recognizes the common interpretation of the 2nd amendment. I do NOT.
1. The first part of the second amendment is the justification clause, the second part is the rights clause. The justification clause does not restrict, modify, or deny the rights clause. The Supreme Court has mentioned the Second Amendment 27 times, and 22 of those times they mention only the rights clause. 2. There are very few legally owned submachine guns or other fully automatic weapons in the US, as to get one you have to pay large sums of money and go through all sorts of red tape and federal background checks. 3.Bryan is in the army, and has had weapons training. Well, I pray to the FSM that he's had weapons training. May his noodly appendage embrace him if he hasn't, ramen.
Actually, only 17% of those guns are ours. You realize that if that was even vaguely true, they would be behind bars, right? In fact, looking at transcripts from Beck's site, it seems like he's more scared of people doing that, rather than promoting it. Is the guy a little odd/paranoid? Yeah, but he's not calling for anything like you claim.
