Why Americans Love Guns

Think of the list for vets with PTSD.

 

i'm personally against the glorification of weaponry, any weaponry. which is what bothers me most about the nra crowd in america, that kind of pro-gun pro-america glorification. but i own rifle personally. and i would self-classify as pretty liberal. i do think we should regulate the firearm market more stringently, but i don't think that we should abolish access to firearms--there's no way that would even happen in america anyway.

 

I think a very large part of the problem is the portrayal of the issue in the media. In this day and age everyone is quick to have righteous indignation over something or other. Once again polarized thinking rears it's ugly head. People start proclaiming 'the truth' or some singular way to deal with an issue and then everyone digs their heels in.

I can easily see multiple sides to the story. There are no shortage of instances of gun owners using their guns in a sensible manner to protect life and limb. A simple Google can bear that out many times over.

And sadly... there are any number of incidents where people who own guns do just the opposite. There are a huge amount of illegal firearms in circulation at any given moment in the US. It's been that way for a very long time. The gun lobby in the US is very powerful and there are massive profits to be made.

Many people love to yammer on about their rights but very few are as vociferous about their responsibilities. Their responsibility to society and to their families if they choose to own a gun.

 

The only thing that needs to be done is to stop fire arms from getting into the hands of criminals. Which is almost impossible. Especially since the government gives them firearms.

 

Slip the jab i have heard this comment regarding illegal firearms twice now with regards to the USA. What constitutes a illegal firearm? Are you talking straw purchases or something else?

Private transactions are legal, unless your a felon. Im not quite sure what your referring to. I hear it all the time from Lefty states/cities. However whats illegal in one state is legal in another.

Im hoping you can clear this up for me cause i hear it alot and dont understand it.

 

The NRA is actually pretty weak as far as such orgs go. It's mostly for hunters and small time self-defense folks nowadays. I'm a fan of Gun Owners of America. What good does it do to regulate the gun industry? That disarms the average person-who would no longer be able to defend himself against an assailant who will get the weapon he desires illegally.

BTW, I find the hyper-patriotic folks incredibly annoying myself. They tend also to be incredibly naive and ignorant.

Just my 2 pence worth.

 

People have different ideas of what constitutes "reasonable", and have differing views on whether to trust the honesty of those proposing restrictions.

And there'd be the question of how to do that without disarming or in any way infringing upon the rights, Second-Amendment or otherwise, of a single law-abiding citizen in the process...

Criminals and tyrants will often use any and all weapons available, lawfully-available or otherwise, in achieving their goals. The freedom for the citizen is in not having the government disarm the law-abiding of the use of the same for self-defense and defense against tyranny. I haven't the slightest idea how you came up with the idea that "living in fear of a firefight" is somehow "equated with freedom".

What quantity would fit your definition of sanity?

 

Yeah, except:



Unf, dat butt.

 

Again I'm still not sure what this has to do with Lefty states/cities. But here goes - these are issues the primarily pertain to California gun laws as its where I've lived most of my time when I was in the US and its the state in which my firearms are registered.

Ive not and never said there are blanket laws that apply to all states. If you think you read that in what I've posted I think you need to go back and read again. I clearly did not. The only thing close to a blanket law I can think would be federal firearms statutes and/or check the Federal NICS check that comes up with purchase of a firearm in California. You can be cleared on one check eg. California Personal Firearms Eligibility Check (PFEC) and still come up denied on the Federal NICS check.

Anyhow... here goes:

1) If a you're a convicted felon and you have a firearm = illegal firearm.

2) Certain misdemeanor convictions and you have a firearm = illegal firearm
Assault with a deadly weapon, brandishing a weapon & certain sex crimes can all make it illegal for you to own a firearm. as do any misdemeanor charges that include violation of a restraining or protective order. Convicted of aggravated mayhem as defined by California law or a conviction for torture or shooting at an inhabited dwelling. - ref: Penal Code 29820 PC

3) If you have stolen that firearm = illegal firearm

4) If you're mag capacity is of more than 10 rounds = illegal firearm
(if you owned the magazine prior to Jan 1, 2000 then you are not in violation. (Pen. Code, §§16150, subd. (b), 30305, 32310.)

5) If your shotgun's barrel is less than 18 inches = illegal firearm

6) If a shotgun is less than 26 inches in overall length, it's 'short barreled', even if its barrel is 18" or longer = illegal firearm

7) If your shotgun has a revolving cylinder = illegal firearm

8) If your shotgun has a detachable clip = illegal firearm

9) If your semiautomatic shotgun that has both a folding or telescoping stock and pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip = illegal firearm

10) You have an assault rifle as defined by California law = illegal firearm

I'm sure there are probably more instances of what is illegal but that's just what comes to mind as per California. Some states have more lenient laws in place some have stricter laws in place. Nothing to do with my personal convictions of left, middle or right. Just the way the law stands in California. Federal law has it's own implications and standards aren restrictions:

Federal law prohibits additional people from owning guns. Such people include (but are not limited to):

- people under indictment in any court for a crime punishable by more than one (1) year in prison,

- those dishonorably discharged from the military

- illegal aliens

- people who have renounced their US citizenship

- anyone under a court order for a crime involving stalking

- fugitives from justice

Those are what I talk about when I refer to illegal firearms. The first one that is the most obvious for the commission of a crime is a stolen firearm. No shortage of gun crime committed with stolen firearms.

Does that answer your question?

 

Is that a reindeer chasing after Santa's sleigh, philo?

 

Chris Rock - bullet controll. Nuf said

 

Thank you that clears it up alot. I figured thats what you meant, and i am in total agreement with it.

The lefty city state comment is a factual one because i only hear that illegal gun comment come from the leaders of those states, most notoriously New York.

 

I've heard Americans say, including in this thread, that they are "more free" because they can defend themselves with firearms.

The two types of people they want to defend themselves from are criminals with firearms, or a tyranical government.

If you have a firearm for self-defence, then presumably you expect that you might need to use it one day. If you're going to wage a guerilla war against a tyranical government, presumably there will be shots fired.

Ergo, you have that firearm out of fear that one day you may have to use it.

I'd rather live in a country where I'm not allowed to have a firearm, and people who do own them are so few and far between that I don't have to give being shot a second thought. I'd call that having more freedom. The freedom to not be so scared that I have to carry a weapon around with me at all times.

 

Yeah but then how are you gonna shoot them that deserve it? Some folks just need killin', what are you gonna do, leave it to the gubmint?

 

Sorry for your loss. And not to sound like I am not sympathetic. am I lead to believe she committed suicide to protest guns by overdose? If so, should not have that been done with a gun instead?

A friend of mind who was a psychology major, stated that women tend to overdose rather than use a gun because they think of it as being messy. As they do not desire to be discovered in that manner.

Again-sorry for your loss

With "freedoms", there should be "responsibilities" I believe gun owners should know their firearms and lock up those not ready for defense use. Educate their children and other family members on the seriousness of firearms

The problem when defending against a "criminal" is that a criminal uses the advantage of surprise and selection of victim. as for use against a "tyranical government", sure-knocked out the Brits from the U.S. "Some" governments that will force anti-gun owenership, usually will force oppression upon its people ("Some")

I cannot say for sure if permits or owning a gun is the ultimate defense. There will be areas were carry is not allowed (unless a LEO). I and others I know carry a firearm and I (and they) have never used it against a criminal. I do not carry one as often I had when I was younger. I think it is more of a issue of mental security than actual defense opportunity. This can be applied to physical martial art study for defense. The idea is more thought of "having" than getting into the actual application and use. Of course, this is all subject to the area/environment one resides. Simply, if one is in area/environment where there is high gun crime, then I rather have a gun than a knife. If one is in area/environment (like a pub) where there is high fisticuffs, then I rather have studied some physical martial art defense methods than a knitting class. Of all of this, pre-thought, responsibility, and logical study is best before pursuing off a "whim or trend"

Agree



I'd rather live in a country where I'm not allowed to have a firearm, and people who do own them are so few and far between that I don't have to give being shot a second thought. I'd call that having more freedom. The freedom to not be so scared that I have to carry a weapon around with me at all times.[/QUOTE]
Well, same can be said of studying a martial art for defense. Or even a country where a terrorist activity can also happen. Or it can be said of certain airlines. Having a fear will cause people to take precautions, actions. And some of these may seem illogical, and in some cases, understandable.

A fear (phobia) of something/anything is never a freedom

 

I can't help feeling that America should have gone more with the spirit of the second amendment and actually formed a "well regulated militia" organisation across the country through which gun ownership would be controlled.
Because the current state of gun ownership in America seems anything but "well regulated" let alone tied into any sense of a militia or security. Almost unregulated it seems to be in some states?
That way training and education would be mandated, home visits on security conducted, membership strictly controlled, guns confiscated if any member behaves badly, etc etc.

 

"Regulated" could be in the sense of laws. That said, with the way the judicial system is, criminals do not have concerns with "regulation" or "laws".

Also, law enforcement is "regulated", yet there are "some" (take note) who abuse that position

So a regulated militia should be, themselves, "regulated"

 

There also a lot of other things that people who legally own guns say. Often times what makes it to the media which is most likely what you hear if you are not living in the US is the vocal minority. The media eats this stuff up and regurgitates it ad infinitum.

There are responsible sensible gun owners out there. I know many of them and there is no shortage of news stories of people who have defended themselves using a legally owned gun when the situation was escalated to a lethal force level by a criminal.

Or a criminal with a knife, or a baseball bat or any other type of weapon that can hurt, maim or kill you.

You set up a very convenient self serving argument. That's great if you're trying to follow the pushing for further polarization on the issue but I think if you read up on the topic you'll find that it's rarely a black and white issue so tidily wrapped up.

Last I checked no one was forcing you to carry a weapon or to live in the US or any other country where firearms are legal for civilians so you can rest easy that you don't have to 'live in fear'. Given the history and context behind why firearms were written in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution the issue of a tyrannical government does factor into the situation.

Are there nutbars who take it and run with it? Sure like with any situation... the extremes are less populate but still there and usually very vocal. The majority tend to sit somewhere in the middle and generally are not very vocal. Or at least they get broadcast on FoxNews and get the type of syndication that the nutbars do. Such is the nature of journalism.

There is no easy fix for the issue. It has and always will plague America. It goes right to the core. So unless you have some magical spell... I suspect it's going to remain an insanely complicated topic.

 

Have you actually sat and read through the gun regulations on both state and federal levels for gun ownership. Try it sometime... I think you'll find they are rather extensive and somewhat exhaustive in what their parameters are. In addition if you look at the penal codes they also have a heavy influence on gun ownership.

Is there room for improvement. Probably. I don't think there is every going to be a perfect situation. But the core of problem is the vague term... well regulated militia. It's been argued umpteen times all the way to the supreme court. No one can ever seem to agree on who exactly should be doing the regulating of the militia or even what constitutes a militia.