Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

And so, here would be the problem with more "Gun Control"....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffI-tWh37UY

 

So because you don't 'get' it, we should just give up our rights? No thanks, perhaps you should go out and learn about our rights, why we have them before talking nonsense about stripping them away...

 

Rioters target whites: "They beating up all the white people."

We have a right to effective self-defense.

https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/764763330980511745

 

Ha ha
Seemed pretty straight forward. The man was agaisnt background checks. We do it for employment in a lot of sensitive areas. It is not a false equivalency; but is if you have no answer.......because you don't. We ask people who are law abiding citizens to prove their qualifications in nearly every one of the bills in the bill of rights of which the second amendment is just one. I guess you guys don' think it's necessary to prove citizenship or prove qualification for anything.

Ha ha and yet, you whine about Obama not being a citizen. That should be OK by you that he doen't have a background check. After all, he's innocent of everything until proven guilty.

 

I can't tell what point you are trying to make. Anyone who steals, even in a non violent manner and convicted as a felon, is a danger to society. Non violent crimes ARE NOT always acceptable behavior you know. Taking someone's savings by deception could send them the victim into bankrupcy. If you don't think that is suffering, you need to go through it your self. Of course there are a lot of non violent crimes that criminals should lose their qualification to own a gun. Once you commit a felon and are adjudged guilty, you have shown a distain for the law. Selling stolen property, like a gun, is a non violent crime too, but it contributes to violence. Non violent crimes can easily contribute violent behavior.

 

Really? You need to prove your qualifications to speak freely?

 

I would absolutely comply with whatever the forum wants. Especially if it would be sensible and save lives, that would be such an easy sacrifice.

To be honest, I did not come here to play "debate" games. I came here to try to get an understanding of why so many people are so fearful and obsessed with the 2nd amendment. I was also curious about whether there was a sensible reason for the average person to own an extremely high powered weapon. That part has been clearly answered. Unless the average decent Americans are building an army to protect itself against a tyrannical government, the only use is for fun. Asked and answered. No one really needs one. So millions of dollars in weapons are being created and sold so people can have fun. I'm sure that's what the Framers had in mind.

 

I found this about the original intentions. I suppose this is biased or incorrect. Maybe you can prove to me that it is. For the record, I'm on no side other than what is sensible and safe. For all those throwing up comments about Dems and lefties, give it up. There are Republicans and people from all backgrounds who want gun violence to stop, want gun control, etc.

When the Second Amendment is discussed today, we tend to think of those “militias” as just a bunch of ordinary guys with guns, empowering themselves to resist authority when and if necessary. Nothing could be further from the founders’ vision.

Militias were tightly controlled organizations legally defined and regulated by the individual colonies before the Revolution and, after independence, by the individual states. Militia laws ran on for pages and were some of the lengthiest pieces of legislation in the statute books. States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.

These laws also defined what type of guns you had to buy — a form of taxation levied on individual households. Yes, long before Obamacare, the state made you buy something, even if you did not want to purchase it. (The guns required by law were muskets, not pistols. The only exceptions to this general rule were the horsemen’s pistols that dragoons and other mounted units needed.)

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a website you all might be interested in:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

 

An 'extremely high powered weapon' would be a hunting rifle.

 

I don't know why people are so fearful. But their fears should not be a justification for enacting legislation that punishes their otherwise peaceful neighbor simply for owning a firearm.

Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers would allow them to restrict the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the several states?

 

I'm talking about over the top assault weapons obviously. The kind that people here have said have no purpose other than for fun.

The kind Trump wanted banned: "I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."-Donald J.Trump

I'm guessing that no one is hunting for survival though. Is that not for fun?

 

Semi and fully automatic weapons don't have a purpose? Then why do our civilian police forces and military purchase them hand over fist?

 

The justification is not about punishment. It's about the children in Newtown, for example. And it's not about punishment any more than following any other laws created to make everyone safe. It's not about gun confiscation or taking away anyone's basic right to protect their family.

If no one understands my basic premise, just read the Brady website. I have no desire to debate every last detail. It's the basic premise. Like Trump, I am no politician, nor am I a legal expert, nor a weapons expert. I am, however, a voter, and I'm trying to understand other people's 2nd amendment obsession over what is sane and right in 2016.

 

I asked earlier and no one claimed a purpose other than fun for the average law abiding citizen. I asked if people were protecting their families or walking around protecting themselves with high powered assault rifles. No answered that that was the case.

 

They are obviously considered useful, which is why they are manufactured and sold to our civilian police forces and US military.

But I'm curious, why are you asking about their purpose? Does an item have to have an "approved purpose" in order for it to be permitted?

Which of congress's enumerated legislative powers would allow them to prohibit the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the several states?

 

Did you now? Or did you come here with preconceived notions, for the purpose of shouting down those that you do not agree with? Did you really come here with an open mind? Or are you simply wasting the time of everyone else, by treading a subject that has been well traveled prior to your arrival?

 

Semi-automatic firearms have been in production since the late nineteenth century, meaning their existence has spanned three different centuries. The technology is far older than any living person, and has been marketed towards hunters and sportsmen since the very beginning.

 

Do not engage in intellectual dishonesty. You were indeed presented by examples of individuals using AR-15s to protect themselves against criminals. This is known for a fact because it was myself who presented them to you.

 

That is simply not true, I stated plainly that own such Rifles and have used them in self Defense many times, I do not own Guns as toys, I did not carry toys as a Police Officer.

 

Then you didn't mean high powered weapons.

 

You don't have to reply if it's a waste of your time. As was pointed out, after the initial approval time on this forum, you are free to respond or not.

Also, how am I "shouting down"?? From my point of view, most everyone is shouting me down. Talk about closed minds. As if a single person is even willing to except anything I've said at all. I barely got my questions out before everyone started with "well traveled" spin, trying to turn me into a "Dem" and a "leftie".

What's odd to me is I'm not coming from the usual debate angle you all, and so many others, enjoy. I'm a voter, and I'm trying to understand. I'd think you'd want to win people like me over, not turn me into the opposition and push me in the opposite direction, which is what the majority have done here.

So good job ya'll.

 

Average people have used AR15s or flame throwers or other "infantry weapons" in self defense?

 

I apologize if I missed that. There are a lot of replies arguing against everything I've said. I'm about done as this has become a pointless waste of my time as well as yours.

But I would like to know about average citizens using and who have used AR15s and the like successfully for protection. If you could re post that, I'd appreciate it.

After that, I'm done.

 

If nonsense is not called out, questioned, dissected, and argued, then it is allowed to be perpetuated as if it were truthful and accurate, when indeed it is not.

So you claim. Yet you come onto this forum in an overly hostile manner, declaring how certain firearms have no useful purpose to warrant their existence, claiming that legislation makes society safe when practical experience says that it does not, using inaccurate and incorrect terminology as if you knew what you were saying, and all while asking why someone would own certain firearms. Your entire approach was not conductive of wanting to learn anything.

If you were truly curious and looking a learn, a better approach would be warranted. Such as informing others that your experience is limited, asking about particular models of firearms, asking what their application is, how are they considered adequate and appropriate for such applications, why they are owned rather than other models, etc. Questions such as why a medium-caliber rifle is more appropriate for defensive purposes when compared to a handgun or shotgun. Questions about what makes the human body so durable that a firearm is seen as necessary for defensive applications. Questions about why legislation fails to achieve the supposed goals it was designed for, and if the matter could be rectified by new legislation to address the shortcomings of already existing legislation.

 

The Brady campaign for Gun Control is NOT a credible source of information about Guns, Gun Control was never an element of the Militia or Armed Citizenry other than to list standard or basic Military weapons to train with, those that were common at the time for Soldiers, there were no limits on pistoles etc...... This is the Revision of History by the Freakazoids of Gun Control.

There was never any control over what weapons anyone could have or use in Military service until the early 20th century IIRC, what was well established was basic weapons according to cost, so those of scant resources could afford them as people had to pay for their own weapons.
The Brady Bunch has managed to Spin Doctor History to read like a Gun control scandal sheet.

The Tide has turned against Gun Control as evidenced by the sheer numbers of concealed carry licenses being obtained, how so ?
You can Poo Poo the staggering numbers of Firearms of all types being purchased daily by saying those Firearms are being purchased by the same three Red Necks in Texarcana, however, each concealed carry permit is one person that has decided that personal defense is an individual decision and responsibility.

Simply put, there are no high power weapons you speak of, the Military's M-16A2 fires a piddly 5.56x45 NATO, Not a weapon of Mass destruction by any definition.
All of the other weapons used by Soldiers fire mostly Ordinary Rifle rounds, Remember that the Brady campaign has the declared intention of banning guns for its own sake, the people are only made "SAFE" by possessing the same firearms available to the Infantryman.