UN Gun grab?

[Shingen]

In general I agree, and on paper that sounds fine. But where do you draw the line? RPGs? How about a stinger missile? And for that matter, why not a tank if you can afford it? No matter how close one sticks to his/her ideals, you can't leave out at least a little bit of space for practicality.

So what's wrong with that? Do you think that society is going to break down because some private citizen owns a tank or an RPG? Guess what? Thousands of private citzens in this country own heavy weapons and they all aren't alCIAda terrorists.

I'm always amazed that people allow things like fluoride to be put in their water, aspartame to be put in their soft-drinks and processed foods, and mercury to be put in their vaccines but somehow these people are worried about whether the guy across the street has an AK and is growing a stalk of herb.

Weird times we live in.

[Darkone]

My whole thought on privately held arms is that as long as your a law biding citizen you should be able to own whatever you want. But the moment you break some laws or diagnosed with some mental disorder that some of those gun freedoms will be in question for you depending on what you own.

I look at this way. If your country is wanting to take your guns away, then they must be doing something that would displease the population and fear repercussions

[Shant]

I'm always amazed that people allow things like fluoride to be put in their water, aspartame to be put in their soft-drinks and processed foods, and mercury to be put in their vaccines but somehow these people are worried about whether the guy across the street has an AK and is growing a stalk of herb.

Fortunately I don't have to worry about my psychologically troubled friend Jerry who lives down the street from getting his hands on a tank, because it's illegal. And believe me, our quiet street is better for it.

[Shingen]

Fortunately I don't have to worry about my psychologically troubled friend Jerry who lives down the street from getting his hands on a tank, because it's illegal. And believe me, our quiet street is better for it.

yep.. the only thing you have to worry about is if Jerry gets a job with the local Sheriff's dept., ATF, DEA, or FBI.

[Shant]

Yeah you're right about that! If he ever got past their psych profile screening...watch out world. Jerry's got a badge.

[GUNSMIF]

ban guns and eradicate them....mankind will kill with blades......ban blades and mankind will kill with clubs...ban clubs....blah blah rocks blah blah.......hands. a gun/blade/club/rock is just a tool!! its the person who is the wepon.


i didnt know i could be philosophical

[Darkone]

i didnt know i could be philosophical

But that saying is right 'guns don't kill people, people using them do'. I am a huge gun supporter personally and don't want to see guns banned, just maybe tighter restrictions on who has them. Yeah I know people can really get them if they want them. But just make the penalties for getting caught not worth the risk. Just make it a mandatory 20yr sentence to be caught with a gun if you were ever convicted of any assault or violent crime.

[Bullwinkle]

I agree with both of you about people being the problem rather than the weapon.

I have thought about this thread several times over the past few weeks, and I have to say that Shingen makes an excellent point. The reason that the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms is as a "fail safe" for a government that may, one day, spin out of control.

The guys who wrote the constitution were pretty sharp. They looked at history and saw that almost no government has been successful for more than a few hundred years, and most have been successful only during the lifetime(s) of the founder(s).

The Big Brother thing really bugs me. It seems SO stupid, after reading as much sci-fi as I have, that anyone would think that it is ok for ANY government to have the power to spy on its people in the way that the US government does today. Wait... wasn't THAT supposed to be an unbreakable rule, as well -- the part about not spying on citizens?

There are too many people in the world already -- more people than available jobs or food or health care. The growth rate is alarming, we are running out of fossil fuels at a gluttonous pace, and everything about our lives is on the Internet, including medical records that our doctors swore were "confidential".

I grew up around hunting and target guns. I am comfortable with them, but I have no desire to keep one around the house. All it takes is TWO intruders (or one trained/lucky/fast one) to take the weapon away and point it in my direction.

And, yet, I keep thinking about Shingen's point... the government IS heading in the wrong direction, and it really is not such a crazy idea for citizens to learn to take care of themselves... just in case.

I think the Air Force has the right idea. I can hardly wait for their PHaSR to come to Wal-Mart:

[hsimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Kirt-2.jpg[/hsimg]

Think of it as a stun gun, like a taser, that has long range and does not need to be reloaded after every shot.

The bad news is that, if people had PHaSRs in their closets, there might be a lot of stunned spouses. But the good news is that there would be a lot less of the paperwork and messy cleanups that firearms create.

PS: Yes, it is true. The Air Force is building ray guns. I suspect they got the design from their Stargate in Cheyenne Mountain, but nobody will say a word about it. It's classified. I want to be clear about that, because I would not want to start a rumor.

[Darkone]

Nice post Bullwinkle.

I don't think a civil war could ever happen, people are to submissive and would just let the government do whatever they want to them as long as they are left alone. Individuals with guns in their homes isn't a threat until they organize.

The government today has there hands in too many cookie jars and has a hold on a lot of power and no one seems to notice just how much. And IF they can take arms away from the civilians then they have secured the safety needed to do whatever they want with no repercussions.

This is a very interesting topic when you think about it from how the founding fathers wanted it. Because they were all about the people running the government not the government running the people. So I guess the next question is how do we get a government that is ran by the people again?

The bad news is that, if people had PHaSRs in their closets, there might be a lot of stunned spouses. But the good news is that there would be a lot less of the paperwork and messy cleanups that firearms create.

Could be used for those unruly kids as well

[Bullwinkle]

IF they can take arms away from the civilians then they have secured the safety needed to do whatever they want with no repercussions.

I think you summed up this thread in one sentence there, Darkone.

I don't think a civil war could ever happen, ...

This is a very interesting topic when you think about it from how the founding fathers wanted it. Because they were all about the people running the government not the government running the people. So I guess the next question is how do we get a government that is ran by the people again?

Um.... civil war?

The jobless rate in the US is around 17%. If it gets anywhere near 50% (probably lower threshold than that), then you're gonna see some kind of dramatic change. And, 100 years from now, when nobody can afford to drive or fly or heat their homes or even buy food in plastic containers anymore, then you can bet that there will be a power shift.

Will we work our way out of trouble peacefully? Maybe. There is no way to know. But we are not headed in a peaceful direction now.

[PHaSRs] Could be used for those unruly kids as well

Be careful... that one could work both ways!