"Right to bear arms" should mean ... (page 51)

Yohan

" In Texas, a legal shotgun can only hold three shells. THREE shells. Fucking TEXAS for chrisakes. We've managed to deal with the hardship for lo these many years.

If TEXANS can live with protecting Ducks from overwhelming firepower - I think we and the rest of the nation can see our way clear to protect humans from overwhelming firepower."

It seems you know two things about gun laws...Jack and Shit! The 3 shotshell maximum is ONLY for hunting migratory waterfowl and that is a FEDERAL law that has been on the books since 1937. This was enacted to restore the decimated waterfowl populations after market hunting in the 1800s and early 1900s nearly wiped out the duck population. I'm amazed at the idiocy and ignorance of the people on this forum.

cedars

TD

The gun control argument is ultimately about whether private citizens should be allowed to own guns or not.

Bingo, there you have it. You've completely fail to grasped what gun control is all about. I suspect you're not the only one on the pro-gun side under such a misconception.

Gun control is NOT about whether private citizens should be allowed to own guns or not. I am British, and in Britain we have gun control. If I really wanted to have a gun, I could take some courses, go through some checks, and pay for a gun license which would need to be renewed. Once I'd bought my gun I would need to keep it safely stored in a lockable metal cupboard, and be prepared for the police to call round at any moment to check that everything is in order. If I so much as stole a bag of candy from the local shop, I could expect to have my gun confiscated and my license revoked.

None of this impairs my right to keep guns as a sane and responsible citizen. It just makes it harder for me to keep guns if I am a psychopath or someone who is prone to criminality. Yes, it's a more expensive way of doing it if you're into guns - but again this is about priorities. Do you want to be able to send your kids to school without the possibility that they will be shot, or do you want to keep guns for free without any checks or balances? Which is more important to you?

Please go away and do some research about what gun control means. Then, by all means, rejoin the debate.

Cedars

Simon

re: the dogs - that is an animal control issue. I think it would be sensible *not* to walk around in a place like that and the community should address the issue (i.e. cull the dogs). If protection is required then bear / pepper-spray would probably work well.

The odd attack does not mean there is a prevalent issue that requires so many armed civilians. A few people per decade killed by animals is certainly tragic to those involved but doesn't warrant the armed response that some are claiming IMO. Just as we don't fit lighting conductors to every tree just because a few people get killed by lightning.

Simon

cedars: perfect description of the issue.

The gun-nuts try to change the argument into "you want to ban all guns" so they can whip out their constitution crap. The reality is most people just want the ultra-dangerous guns controlled. The fact that so many of these mass-shootings are done with legally obtained mass-fire weapons is proof enough that limiting their availability should make a different.

Simon

Oh and re: the dogs - I think a normal firearm would be plenty: as soon as one dog has been shot they will be all over it and leave you alone (if they ever stop running). Why would someone need a 100 shot semi-automatic rifle for a few dogs???

Simon

Look at these faces, read their stories, then tell us you need a semi-automatic or large-capacity weapon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20745089

Yohan

Semi-auto's and high capacity weapons are needed in case we need to overthrow a totalitarian government or in case of invasion by another country. You'll get mine when you pry them from my cold dead fingers.

cedars

Yohan

Semi-auto's and high capacity weapons are needed in case we need to overthrow a totalitarian government or in case of invasion by another country.

Yikes, I hadn't thought of that. I was under the illusion that America has the most sophisticated and feared armed forces in the world, that are more than capable of protecting its citizens. If I am mistaken and it's every man for himself, then I apologize for my ignorance.

Cedars

Pterist

Everybody has a right to defend his own family and property. However, a gun would be more than sufficient even as a visible deterrent.

The American far right argument is that they need to defend themselves from their own government if need be. However, if that's the case they will need to purchase a couple of dozen nuclear war heads to keep up.

Nobody needs an automatic riffle and the likes that are not even used for hunting.

Yohan

The 2nd Amendment is in place for the exact reason I stated as well as for personal protection. It wasn't put in there for hunting.

"Right to bear arms" should mean ...

Share this