Fukushima Nuclear Reactor Meltdown

[LDB]

Increase the penalty on the criminal, the one thing that makes any sense. It should be an automatic and absolute capital offense to be in possession of a weapon during the commission of a felony. Not a firearm, a weapon. In possession, exactly as that implies.

[Draigflag]

You mean the fact that the owner of the property can shoot a criminal to death, or 15 years behind bars for armed robbery or being electrocuted to death/drugged to death by the State isn't a deterrent? Somethings not adding up here...

Sorry, I said I was finished on this matter. I just wonder what particular set of circumstances a gun would be useful, what if the perpetrator shoots you first? What if his side kick shoots you after? What if they get in without waking you and shoot you in your sleep? What if you don't have time to wake, turn the light on, adjust your eyes to the light, go find your gun, load your gun before they shoot you? What if the criminal is stronger than you, overpowered you and used your gun on you and your family? What if you're away when this happens? What if someone shoots your kids or do they carry guns too? What if you've had a drink? Are people under the influence allowed to use guns too? At bars/clubs? Way too many what ifs for me, the chances of a gun being a useful tool must be a billion to one no?

[LDB]

Very many, too numerous to count. Get access to the publication The American Rifleman. There are a dozen or so in every issue as examples. And I guess in your world it's better to dial 911 and wait however long you have to wait than to have the possibility of immediately saving yourself. I might as well throw away my fire extinguishers too and just dial 911 and wait rather than trying to put out the fire myself.

[Jcp385]

Originally Posted by trollbait

Not according to past Supreme Court rulings.

I haven't really informed myself on SCOTUS rulings on the 2A, but that's kinda spurious if that's true. Self defense is a valid reason to choose to own a weapon but not as a basis for why it's your right to choose to do so. It was clearly written with Britain in mind, not having given up several forts as promised on our borderlands after the Revolutionary War, but also with an eye to the idea that an armed populace should cause the government to think twice about abuse of citizens. Heck, even the normally mild-mannered Ben Franklin said that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, but liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. Though there's speculation on how literally he meant this, Thomas Jefferson stated that the tree of liberty must, from time to time, be replenished with the blood of patriots and tyrants. All of this fit into the general scheme of neat little checks and balances they provided.

The general idea that the 2A is somehow more for protection of your person or property, then, is a bit curious.

Ben Franklin, among his many civic pursuits in Philadelphia in the mid-1700s, was able to start a police brigade. The British were content to provide colonists with firearms, figuring it cheaper for colonists to defend themselves than to commit the British army, and supply chains via the British navy to do it. Obviously Mr. Franklin chose this over simply saying that "you're armed or can be armed, so we'll leave the protection to you".

That's the long way of saying I'm pro-2A, but not because of the same conventional wisdom as the NRA, etc. and if it's gotten all the way to SCOTUS, I'm really scratching my head.

[trollbait]

Originally Posted by Jcp385

I haven't really informed myself on SCOTUS rulings on the 2A, but that's kinda spurious if that's true. Self defense is a valid reason to choose to own a weapon but not as a basis for why it's your right to choose to do so. It was clearly written with Britain in mind, not having given up several forts as promised on our borderlands after the Revolutionary War, but also with an eye to the idea that an armed populace should cause the government to think twice about abuse of citizens. Heck, even the normally mild-mannered Ben Franklin said that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner, but liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. Though there's speculation on how literally he meant this, Thomas Jefferson stated that the tree of liberty must, from time to time, be replenished with the blood of patriots and tyrants. All of this fit into the general scheme of neat little checks and balances they provided.

The general idea that the 2A is somehow more for protection of your person or property, then, is a bit curious.

Ben Franklin, among his many civic pursuits in Philadelphia in the mid-1700s, was able to start a police brigade. The British were content to provide colonists with firearms, figuring it cheaper for colonists to defend themselves than to commit the British army, and supply chains via the British navy to do it. Obviously Mr. Franklin chose this over simply saying that "you're armed or can be armed, so we'll leave the protection to you".

That's the long way of saying I'm pro-2A, but not because of the same conventional wisdom as the NRA, etc. and if it's gotten all the way to SCOTUS, I'm really scratching my head.

"...the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court..." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


The Court is saying that self defense is in addition to the needs of a militia. The dissenting opinion pointed out that Pennsylvania's and Vermont's Declarations of Rights do specifically protect use of fire arms for hunting and self-defense.

I don't see the need for a gun as self protection, and the stats show it is more likely to cause harm than help. It is no longer the Wild West, and the people might have had less guns than they do now.

I like the idea of an armed populace as protection from tyranny, but the big money behind pro-gun fighting any tight of restrictions when the public supports them is more about greed than freedom.