cheezMcNASTY
Edible in some countries
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,326
- Reaction score
- 1,396
- Points
- 315
I'm sure you've all heard about what happened at a Conneticut elementary school a short while ago.
If you live under a rock, here.
If you don't keep up with the news concerning the United States (and I don't expect you to, it's just that a lot of people around the world do), this horrific incident has sparked two things.
1. Debate has sparked, ignited, and blazed over our second amendment. Again, I don't expect you to know off-hand what that is. It's the portion of the United States Constitution that allows us the right to own firearms. There is a lot of talk right now over what Obama will do. Most of what's being said hints that he wants to further restrict firearms, either by restricting clip sizes or reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired a little more than 6 years ago.
2. People are buying guns like crazy over here. The industry has experienced an incredible boom. Since most guns sold here are manufactured here, all the people who both (A) hated Obamas economic policies and (B) are afraid of the government having any power over their lives at all can stick it to pro-gun control legislation and stimulate the US economy all in one fell swoop.
What are your thoughts?
My opinion below. Feel free to tl;dr
I personally live in an area with a fair number of conservatives, tea-partyists, conspiracy theorists, etc. I also work at a hardware store and often encounter the do-it-yourselfers who you would stereotype to be buying oodles of guns right now, and a lot of them are. It's terrifying.
I'm personally pretty neutral on the subject. I don't think banning semi-automatic weapons or restricting clip sizes makes sense. A crazy person can still bring an extra clip and, as long as the weapon is semi-automatic, it has the same potential rate of fire as a handgun, more or less so such laws are pointless.
Furthermore, the second amendment only guarantees a US citizen the uninhibited right to own firearms. An american's right to own firearms isn't even being discussed here, it's just a matter of which firearms those who support gun control are particularly uncomfortable about. If you apply a logic test to the second amendment, you can see that the constitution is not violated by an assault weapons ban or anything of the like. People still have every right to purchase legally sanctioned firearms, in addition to what they already legally own. A lot of people near where I live treat a law such as this like the end of the world. They think the federal government will go ban-happy until there are no guns left for purchase. FYI this would still not contradict the cut-and-dry interpretation of the amendment, since guns legally purchased can always be legally owned. They can also be inherited, though a gun-hating president could stick a tire-iron in this by making all guns of a deceased person the property of the United States government, but that sort of thing could never be actively enforced.
So there you have my reasoning for why both sides are correct. My indecisiveness goes even further because no law that could ever be passed would take away the massive amount of guns that are already owned by US citizens. Even if the purchase of all firearms was banned (still not violating people right to own firearms, by the way), there are enough guns already purchased legally to overthrow 12 US governments and organize against an invading nation, which is the underlying purpose to the amendment. Not to stockpile an illogical number of guns in your basement. In the end, I oppose legislation because it would be pointless at this point for the reasons in this paragraph. Waste of time and tax dollars.
If you live under a rock, here.
If you don't keep up with the news concerning the United States (and I don't expect you to, it's just that a lot of people around the world do), this horrific incident has sparked two things.
1. Debate has sparked, ignited, and blazed over our second amendment. Again, I don't expect you to know off-hand what that is. It's the portion of the United States Constitution that allows us the right to own firearms. There is a lot of talk right now over what Obama will do. Most of what's being said hints that he wants to further restrict firearms, either by restricting clip sizes or reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired a little more than 6 years ago.
2. People are buying guns like crazy over here. The industry has experienced an incredible boom. Since most guns sold here are manufactured here, all the people who both (A) hated Obamas economic policies and (B) are afraid of the government having any power over their lives at all can stick it to pro-gun control legislation and stimulate the US economy all in one fell swoop.
What are your thoughts?
My opinion below. Feel free to tl;dr
I personally live in an area with a fair number of conservatives, tea-partyists, conspiracy theorists, etc. I also work at a hardware store and often encounter the do-it-yourselfers who you would stereotype to be buying oodles of guns right now, and a lot of them are. It's terrifying.
I'm personally pretty neutral on the subject. I don't think banning semi-automatic weapons or restricting clip sizes makes sense. A crazy person can still bring an extra clip and, as long as the weapon is semi-automatic, it has the same potential rate of fire as a handgun, more or less so such laws are pointless.
Furthermore, the second amendment only guarantees a US citizen the uninhibited right to own firearms. An american's right to own firearms isn't even being discussed here, it's just a matter of which firearms those who support gun control are particularly uncomfortable about. If you apply a logic test to the second amendment, you can see that the constitution is not violated by an assault weapons ban or anything of the like. People still have every right to purchase legally sanctioned firearms, in addition to what they already legally own. A lot of people near where I live treat a law such as this like the end of the world. They think the federal government will go ban-happy until there are no guns left for purchase. FYI this would still not contradict the cut-and-dry interpretation of the amendment, since guns legally purchased can always be legally owned. They can also be inherited, though a gun-hating president could stick a tire-iron in this by making all guns of a deceased person the property of the United States government, but that sort of thing could never be actively enforced.
So there you have my reasoning for why both sides are correct. My indecisiveness goes even further because no law that could ever be passed would take away the massive amount of guns that are already owned by US citizens. Even if the purchase of all firearms was banned (still not violating people right to own firearms, by the way), there are enough guns already purchased legally to overthrow 12 US governments and organize against an invading nation, which is the underlying purpose to the amendment. Not to stockpile an illogical number of guns in your basement. In the end, I oppose legislation because it would be pointless at this point for the reasons in this paragraph. Waste of time and tax dollars.
