All Firearms Discussions in This Thread

[airoff]

Of course the men you're speaking of WERE the oppressive government. They owned slaves and denied even the most basic rights to anyone who wasn't a male land owner. So to trust their infinite wisdom seems somewhat of a contradiction to me. When I hear a good answer as to why the wise men who wrote this freedom document only allowed a select group of people to actually exercise these rights, perhaps I'll understand this refusal to ever acknowledge that perhaps they weren't as "wise" as we're told.

I'm not certain if I understand you here. There is nothing exclusive about the second amendment, or the entire constitution... if that's what you mean by this freedom document. And we had a very bloody civil war to end slavery in short order, I don't think it was ever in Americas interest to include slavery in a country setup to promote freedom to all.

Out of respect for the majority of folks here I'm going to bow out of this discussion on this forum. I believe the right to self defense is inalienable. My beef with most folks who champion the Second Amendment is that they tend to be the first group to demand that others have this right stripped from them (see: the Mulford act for but one example). The fact we needed a civil war to end slavery is why I'm not moved by the argument that we can't limit the sorts of weapons people can possess "because founding fathers". The men who founded this country were as fallible as those in power today, if not more so. I would never argue my worst enemy shouldn't have the right to free thought and expression. I know of very few Americans who would argue our worst enemy should be able to have, for example, a nuclear weapon. Thus, if the right isn't inalienable, then I'm open to limiting it.

[retired jerry]

I'm too lazy to find a source, but aren't there more suicides, and accidental deaths from guns, than killing a bad guy that's threatening someone's life?

Yeah, most gun owners are fine. I occasionally encounter someone with a gun which makes me a little uneasy, but then that fear has been unfounded and they seemed friendly.

[Koda]

Crusak, for a woods gun you should consider a full pressur 10mm with hardcast bullets. Good for a 100yds.

[potato]

You can have a historical debate about what some people wrote down 220 years ago when the USA was young and the standard military weapon was a musket and every state had a militia or something. What does it have to do with today? Why not base our laws about guns on the best research we can produce, instead of extrapolating them from a practically ancient document?

There is a saying that those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

What does a document written 220 years ago have to do with today? Well, it really wasn't that long ago that a million jews were persecuted and murdered under an oppressive government. Other countries have suffered genocide since then as well. There are still many other civil liberties that only recently in history been properly allowed. Are those rights worth fighting for? And on what level. Can it happen again? Here in America? Maybe as time goes on and all the worlds imperfections are worked out and we become a world of peace will personal ownership of military weapons really be reduced to competition shooting matches at established clubs ect. But really, how is anyone free at any time if they do not have the capability to stand up for their rights and resist oppression?

220 years ago was not that long compared to the time its been since history has been recorded. America is unique in that we are the only country in the world with a constitutional right that gives the power to its people to resist government oppression and have the ability to protect themselves from harm. I've heard arguments that the people are the militia, but however you read it its very clear "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Its been upheld by the supreme court.

I do think that it is important to learn from our history, and I guess that's the most interesting thing about it for me. And I'm glad people study it.

I don't have a lot of faith in government and I completely understand that the ability to resist oppression is highly desirable. The connection I'm not making is how public gun ownership is supposed to provide a mechanism for resisting the government. You say that we have constitutional rights to resist government oppression, and I can only assume you mean with firearms, using violence. Have there actually been cases where a person used a gun against a government official and was found innocent because the government was being "oppressive"? I just have a hard time envisioning a circumstance where citizens successfully resist the will of the government because they're armed. Mostly because these days our government usually oppresses with politics and not force, and it's not OK to use firearms to fight political decisions you don't like.

Agreed that America's history is in fact short. Depends on the context I guess. Human history is like a short moment compared to Earth's history (well, depending on your religious beliefs -- compare to eternity if you don't believe in an old Earth)... but a 10 year old computer can feel like ancient archaeology

[Koda]

I'm too lazy to find a source, but aren't there more suicides, and accidental deaths from guns, than killing a bad guy that's threatening someone's life?
.

No.

Im too lazy to cite sources now too....

[Koda]

" Have there actually been cases where a person used a gun against a government official and was found innocent because the government was being "oppressive"?"

The most recent case I can think of is the American revolution.

[Chase]

I'm all for moving it, if not simply deleting it so we can all get back to being tffs.

Awesome!

I can disagree with or hear the opinions of others here and still love 'em. Most everyone who posts here frequently have something to say that I find of interest.

Unfortunately, though, this thread is not what I intended/hoped it would be with respect to hiking, so I, too, agree with the Idle Chatter idea of GH.

[potato]

The most recent case I can think of is the American revolution.

That doesn't seem like an example of what I asked... that's an example of overthrowing the ruling government, disregarding its laws completely and replacing it with something different... aren't we talking about how the constitution provides a legal route for preventing or responding to oppression?

I agree Chase, I like hearing the different opinions and I don't mind when people disagree.

[xrp]

Two hours later and a few miles down the trail I saw the group again and attempted more friendly talk, only to be given cryptic responses about their "seeking solitude" and then was told "maybe we'll see your desiccated corpse in a few days."

It's at this point that I would have wasted the MF'ers and then howled at the moon asserting my dominance in the wilderness territory.

[xrp]

I'm too lazy to find a source, but aren't there more suicides, and accidental deaths from guns, than killing a bad guy that's threatening someone's life?

Yeah, most gun owners are fine. I occasionally encounter someone with a gun which makes me a little uneasy, but then that fear has been unfounded and they seemed friendly.

Yes, you're correct.

About 30,000 people die in firearms related deaths every year.

About 18,000 of these are suicides.

The majority of the remainder are accidental or from someone you know or runs in the same social circle. Examples: a battered wife shooting an abusive husband. Gang related shooting over respect or turf.

The minority of the remaining are self-defense or self-offense (committing murder or attempted murder).

That is why I have a driving phobia. I'm more likely to be in an incident with a stranger driving their car than a stranger with a gun.

That being said, I'll normally take to a trail with a Ruger LC9, SIG P228 or P220 or one of my AR-15s.