To gun, or not to gun?

Yes, I know he's from Canada, and he knows I'm from the Gulf Coast, and yet he keeps telling me about my imminent danger from Canadian animals and how delighted he's going to be when they get me (insert evil laugh here). He's obviously become panicked that I'm going to take away his guns, as if I've never said things like, "even in the UK, they have exceptions for (rural areas)" and, "For the record, I don't believe in a 100% gun bans." Dude is completely mental.

People die of dog attacks far more often than they do from caribou, maybe we should shoot all dogs on sight?

 

who said you should shoot all caribou on sight.
If a dog attacks then shoot it.

 

But they're far more dangerous than those menacing caribou, because various sets of google searches for information related to caribou attacks on humans = 0 hits, whereas dog attacks are common. So it's best not to take chances.

Unless caribou are like the CIA of the animal kingdom, who attack through stealth and guile, and pin the blame on mooses as part of a disinformation program? Hmmm.

 

Builder, now do you see why I gave up on NuckleMuckle? He is just too ignorant and is beyond any sense of reason. He is in the simplest terms. A blind zealot. So skewed in his beliefs that he puts blinders on to any outside information and consistently twists it around so that it is some what rational to his irrational narrow mind. He is as bad if not worse than TheDebatheist

And to people who keep saying that UK's gun laws would work in the US... Do the math, look at the size of all of Great Britain, heck, compare the size of all of Europe to just the USA alone, let alone the entire continent of North America.

Added to the fact that the UK is an Island where as the USA shares borders with Mexico and Canada.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 5, 2016, Original Post Date: Feb 5, 2016 ---

By the way, please... Quote me word for word where I said these things. You have not once mentioned that you were from the Gulf during our entire conversation.

Otherwise, if you keep refering to me in that tone I will get Klutch involved in it. Because you are beyond reasoning. Anybody who goes back and reads your comments through-out this thread can easily attest to that.

 

So your coherent, well-reasoned argument is "USA is big, and has borders!!" LOL.

Australia is big, too. Also, most of Europe has gun control, and they don't seem to be having the same problems on the same scale that we are. They're more population dense, too. Of course, they haven't been problem free, but the guns aren't coming from outside of the EU, they're coming from within its own open borders, much like how it happens in the US: http://time.com/how-europes-terrorists-get-their-guns/

You're correct, I haven't said it once. I've said it three times.

Here are the previous two.

The linked story comes from Covington, LA, and says so right there in the story. And I assume you've heard of a little place called New Orleans, and have some vague idea as to where it might be found?

So, there's another own-goal hammered in for you. I'll wait while you mug for the imaginary cameras.

I'm the one beyond reasoning, you say? These never happened? I'll quote them word for word for you this time, so rather than being softened by my satire, they'll reek purely of your own malevolence:

Oh, and by the way, you also said this:

And this:

Both of which comments are beyond stupid, because I never said this about all gun owners, I only addressed it to you, for reasons that are quite clear above. Learn to read.

Meanwhile, you keep spouting off about how completely ignorant I am of guns and gun laws... except that I've made a number of claims, all easily verifiable, so please tell me which ones I got wrong. To recap just a few:

- Canada disallows automatic rifles and limits semi-automatic rifles to 5 rounds per mag (tossing you a softball here).
- The UK has exceptions for firearms in rural areas.
- Many US military personnel (USN/USAF/USCG) perform a simple familiarization fire in boot camp, then never touch a firearm again.
- I (a US resident) can purchase an AR-14 with ease.
- The guy who shot up Virginia Tech bought his weapons legally, despite documented mental health issues.
- Swiss gun owners are former military, and their laws regarding transporting firearms are more like CA's than TX's.

Go ahead, expose this ignorance you keep going on about. Because all you've offered in the vague neighborhood of verifiable fact is what happens to the meat when you kill one of those savage caribou that are secretly ravaging your country, and a couple of other idiot statements (everyone in Australia's Outback is armed, home invasions are quite common) which are easily disproven.

 

Those comments are nowhere near psychopathic. I am simply telling you to apply your "ideal" do a real life situation and see how it pans out.

 

yep

 

Oh, that sorts that out, my bad. See, when someone tells me they would love to see horrific violence done to me and my family, I assume that that means they would love to see violence done to me and my family. But you're one of those who uses words that mean one thing, but you actually meant something else entirely, and it's the fault of the other person if they mistook your words for meaning what they actually mean in literal English, you're working off some other thesaurus entirely.

Are you my wife?

 

See I thought you would have a better sense of reading comprehension and understanding of "context". Apparently I was wrong.

 

Here in Canada and most parts of the world, we think that America has a severe gun problem. It is not necessary for a country so large to depend on firearms for self-protection. Look at us in Canada for example, the only place that you can actually buy a real gun would be on the Aboriginal reservations, and we don't depend on violence for self-protection. For us, guns have become sort of "Cliché". Unless you are a kid who is annoyingly obsessed with joining the military, and I have met plenty of those kids and every...single..one of them seems like they are just crazy.

 

Woah woah woah ... I live in canada too and I dont know where you live but we can buy guns in many designated stores like cabelas, wholesale sports and other hunting stores, not just aborigional reservations. But the thing is you NEED a firearms liscense which requires you to take a course and pass a test.

 

Does Canada have it written in their constitution they have a right to bear arms? It is a right for Americans to own firearms although I think it is ignorant to say we don't need some reform on our gun laws. Peoples' mental health and criminal records should be assessed when firearms are purchased and people routinely bypass some restrictions at gun shows etc... I am a owner of an AR-15 not because I wanted an assault rifle but because that's what I am legally allowed to have. I am a NJ resident staying in Florida for school so I can't own a hand gun but "long guns" or "assault rifles" with barrels above 16 inches require no license to own. I simply had a 1 week hold on the gun and purchased it. I will say an AR-15 is much easier to shoot than a hand gun, a novice can shoot my rifle with extreme accuracy. For those who say "you don't need it", there have been a number of break ins in my community and I rather not wait 10 minutes for cops to show up if a thug decides to enter my house with a weapon. In that event I have a 30 round magazine high powered rifle and I am quite happy knowing that.

 

What if, in order to purchase a gun, you have to take classes (training) and be certified. I'm ok with gun ownership, however, most people are truly stupid, and I don't want a death weapon in their hands. So what about testing for competency?

 

Welcome to America

 

Honestly, I've lost count of the amount of times that people have said that they need a gun to protect their home.
Not once have I heard of someone who has had their house broken into, and successfully neutralized the intruder by shooting them.

 

I think I mentioned this somewhere up-thread, but it bears repeating. The Second Amendment consists of two parts: a premise, and a result. The result is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The premise upon which this right is based is, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

The Founding Fathers were, correctly for their time and place, extremely suspicious of standing armies. The national defense plan was to, in time of emergency, call upon the common rabble to form themselves into militias, which would be organized into some form of temporary army. This plan "worked" for the Revolution, War of 1812, and the war for Texas' independence. When the Civil War broke out, the initial Union forces were militias called up by the several states, but it didn't take long before that model gave way to one in which they were volunteered/conscripted into a professional army that provided all the gear they needed... especially the firearms, because it turns out that it's a lot more efficient to provide ammo when everyone is firing the same weapon, and not trying to supply everyone's granddaddy's squirrel gun. Except for Teddy Roosevelt's actions in the Spanish-American War, that was the end of militia action in US military history. And even then, Teddy's regiment did not bring their own weapons, they were supplied.

The Fathers phrased it that way for a reason. If the premise were ever invalidated, then there could and should be no reason why the government couldn't choose to limit access to deadly weapons. That premise has been invalid since 1861.

 

Yeah, but that's semantics whether or not the Constitution is a "living document", which is still very much up for debate.

I'm all for common sense regulations on weaponry, but I completely support an armed citizenry.

 

Not really. This is an original intent argument, not a living document argument. The original intent was to protect the right to bear arms because that's how they planned to defend the nation from foreign invaders. A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. Quite the opposite... the right to bear arms is connected to less security in a free state.

One of the prominent arguments in favor of an armed citizenry is the Revolution, and the possible need to defend against government tyranny again. To that I'd say:

1) The Constitution already contains the means for peaceful revolution, it's called democracy.
2) To find out how the Founders felt about a citizen militia standing up to perceived government oppression, see Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion.

 

I'm not sure we can argue their original intent clearly; especially as the Founding Fathers had wildly differing opinions on all sorts of things, as much difference then as now. Considering G. Washington knew a militia to be wholly ineffective, and sometimes an outright liability; I would have doubts subscribing to the idea that they based their defense on that premise. Especially as America, even before a nation took many steps to build a professional army immediately.

Arguing the intent of the Constitution is a slippery slope as well, because the democracy offered by the Constitution, for some time, applied to only land owning white males, and that was their intention. Coupled with the fact that the Constitution was violated probably before the ink dried on it, the Whiskey Rebellion being the first notable violation that I can cite currently, I don't think we can accurately argue their intentions with 200 years of hindsight. However, if we were to argue intent, I would argue that the FF did intend for a armed citizenry, especially considering the way of life in those days; hunting was a major component in that life and guns were a necessary tool for the era.

While I do not subscribe in the theory that the government is here to take away guns solely to be oppressive, or any other lunatic type views. I see the issue as very simple; in history, can the case be made that a government has turned oppressive and tyrannical was a reaction to a major traumatic event. I think that if it has happened before, it can surely happy again, especially in an era where our government is collecting mass surveillance and data of it's citizenry. While I do support common sense regulations for guns, and I'd even support the notion of one must be trained and certified to own a gun, I do believe that an armed citizenry is the best insurance policy against things that have happened in this world before, and could surely happen again.

I believe the need of being ever more secure is the very thing that will lead us into a society that could be quite dark, and I am terrified of the notion that we're so willing to give up our freedoms for the very security that we don't really need. I subscribe to Benjamin Franklin's view of this problem, that those that give up freedom for security deserve neither.

 

Again, I refer you to the Whiskey Rebellion. It was the first time the newly constituted government exercised its military arm, and it was against the very kind of armed citizenry you believe they intended to support. George Washington personally mounted his horse (at 57) and rode at the head of the column of 13,000 troops to face down a group of 500. What kind of an army was George leading? Militia.

He had valid reason to distrust their military utility, but the hostility to standing armies went far, far deeper. Think Quartering Act. Think Boston Massacre. Then think Newburgh Conspiracy, where Washington had to personally intervene to prevent his own army from potentially attempting a coup d'etat.