Thread: Gun Control VS. The Second Amendment

I have replied to a few posts on these topics but (in my opinion), people are dancing around the issues. Gun control and Second Amendment are completely different topics and I have opinions on both.

First, gun control. First, I am going to say that guns are not the problem. That's that. Moving along. The people committing deadly and harmful crimes are just a small part of the problem. The biggest part of the problem is our bleeding heart, liberal justice system. Hard time in prison should be a place that people ABSOLUTELY do not want to go to. Once a violent felon has been convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt, life as they once knew it is OVER. Period. Have more capital punishment for the most violent. Spend twenty to life making gravel out of boulders with sledgehammers. Renovate Alcatraz and I bet people will think twice knowing what's ahead. Prison should be very punishing but it shouldn't be seen as the mission. The mission should be a deterrent. And the BIGGEST deterrent of all, should be, "Wait a minute. This person I'm going to harm or this door I'm about to break down or this car door I'm about to open might get a bullet in my head". Or "I can't find a gun free zone". That's it. That's my thoughts on gun control.

Now, the Second Amendment. Even though firearms are a common factor, the Second amendment and gun control are as different as elephants and strawberries. The Second Amendment, short and simple. Well, simple to most of us it is. It's rocket science to a lot of people. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or self defense. If you didn't hunt, you didn't eat. And self defense is just a self evident truth of a free society. The second Amendment is another deterrent for the people to keep our enemies in check. Should it be any form; foreign or domestic. I would hope that all or at least most of our military would know that they fight to protect us. Not any form of government should we ever fall under tyranny or foreign ships unload soldiers on our shores. But the people's right to keep and bear arms is there because the people in the military or militia (and I do support the law biding, non extreme militias) can't be everywhere. We have the right and I feel it is my duty as a citizen to defend this country and the people if that time ever comes.

I am not or was ever in the military or any form of law enforcement. I'm just your everyday blue collar American citizen joe. A conflict on our soil may not happen in my lifetime or it may. No one can predict it regardless what they try and tell you. Whether it's some mainstream media patsy or a conspiracy theorist. But just because I never swore an oath doesn't mean I will allow anyone my deny me my right to defend myself and my country.

That's my thoughts on the Second Amendment. Two completely unrelated topics. I am all for controlling gun crimes. But politicians need to get their eyes off the tool and focus on the crimes themselves.

Originally Posted by Ice64

I have replied to a few posts on these topics but (in my opinion), people are dancing around the issues. Gun control and Second Amendment are completely different topics and I have opinions on both.

First, gun control. First, I am going to say that guns are not the problem. That's that. Moving along. The people committing deadly and harmful crimes are just a small part of the problem. The biggest part of the problem is our bleeding heart, liberal justice system. Hard time in prison should be a place that people ABSOLUTELY do not want to go to. Once a violent felon has been convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt, life as they once knew it is OVER. Period. Have more capital punishment for the most violent. Spend twenty to life making gravel out of boulders with sledgehammers. Renovate Alcatraz and I bet people will think twice knowing what's ahead. Prison should be very punishing but it shouldn't be seen as the mission. The mission should be a deterrent. And the BIGGEST deterrent of all, should be, "Wait a minute. This person I'm going to harm or this door I'm about to break down or this car door I'm about to open might get a bullet in my head". Or "I can't find a gun free zone". That's it. That's my thoughts on gun control.

Now, the Second Amendment. Even though firearms are a common factor, the Second amendment and gun control are as different as elephants and strawberries. The Second Amendment, short and simple. Well, simple to most of us it is. It's rocket science to a lot of people. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or self defense. If you didn't hunt, you didn't eat. And self defense is just a self evident truth of a free society. The second Amendment is another deterrent for the people to keep our enemies in check. Should it be any form; foreign or domestic. I would hope that all or at least most of our military would know that they fight to protect us. Not any form of government should we ever fall under tyranny or foreign ships unload soldiers on our shores. But the people's right to keep and bear arms is there because the people in the military or militia (and I do support the law biding, non extreme militias) can't be everywhere. We have the right and I feel it is my duty as a citizen to defend this country and the people if that time ever comes.

I am not or was ever in the military or any form of law enforcement. I'm just your everyday blue collar American citizen joe. A conflict on our soil may not happen in my lifetime or it may. No one can predict it regardless what they try and tell you. Whether it's some mainstream media patsy or a conspiracy theorist. But just because I never swore an oath doesn't mean I will allow anyone my deny me my right to defend myself and my country.

That's my thoughts on the Second Amendment. Two completely unrelated topics. I am all for controlling gun crimes. But politicians need to get their eyes off the tool and focus on the crimes themselves.

Good post. I guess nobody could argue with you.

Hell of a way to say it. The biggest problem with guns control is that most of the polititions, including Feinstein who is pushing for the bans, know absolutely nothing about firearms. Any gun with a bullet in it is just as deadly as an assault rifle. As IF said in another post, we are working with a broken system that does not help the mentally I'll, it would be too expensive and they would rather hold votes to give themselves bigger pay raises than the normal 3% increase us normal americans receive. The main problem here is corruption and greed.

Originally Posted by 2ndaMANdment

Hell of a way to say it. The biggest problem with guns control is that most of the polititions, including Feinstein who is pushing for the bans, know absolutely nothing about firearms. Any gun with a bullet in it is just as deadly as an assault rifle.

Not really. She says that military-style assault weapons (rifles) are dangerous because they can kill many people quickly. A single-shot pistol or rifle can't really do that. This is why they aren't used in combat. They only cause harm in the general population.

Originally Posted by 2ndaMANdment

As IF said in another post, we are working with a broken system that does not help the mentally I'll, it would be too expensive and they would rather hold votes to give themselves bigger pay raises than the normal 3% increase us normal americans receive. The main problem here is corruption and greed.

Obama's healthcare bill should get mental healthcare to more people, especially at-risk young males who are especially prone to rampages.

The dirty little secret about guns is that they're very often used for suicides. Healthcare access should help prevent this too.

Feinstien's bill wasn't meant to confiscate guns. There would still be over 2,000 legal guns to choose from. It was just an effort to reduce the number of guns in circulation. The more guns are available, the cheaper they are. It's better that a drug addict has to pay $500 for a gun than $50 if they want to rob somebody because they chances of a street addict having $500 are pretty low. Supply and demand.