Political Attitude Overall (Page 2 of 4)

I completely disagree.  It's been proven time and again *and convieniently covered up and/or under-reported* that the MORE private gun owners there are in an area, the LESS crime there is, INCLUDING gun-crime/murder.  Look at England.  Since the private ownership of handguns *I think gun ownership in general was outlawed, but I don't recall so I'll just say pistols* was banned gun related crime skyrocketed.  I believe it is the same in Australia and Canada *Canada hasn't banned gun ownership entirely...yet...but their restrictions are much higher then here and the crime rate has gone up accordingly; will source this later if anybody thinks I don't know what I'm talking about*

ok... what exactly do you base this example on?  did this happen to you or your family?  where a neighbor bought a gun so your whole neighborhood bought an arsenal to fight him off if he went on a rampage, despite being a honest and good neighbor *or even a cranky, pain in the butt neighbor* ?  Not to rip you, but that sounds like a totally unrealistic scenario unless you can back it up with something. 

My primary issue with your comments is I'd like to know what it is you suggest?  You seem to want to reminisce about the good old days before guns when man hacked each other to death with swords and axes in the more brutal methods imaginable more then you want to talk about current issues.  The fact is, for better or worse, we DO have guns, and they're not going anywhere   

ummm..... I know you're smarter then this dude.  I'm fairly sure you could find an instance or two of countries having internal 'instability, off-ballance, and lack of trust' before the invention of firearms.  You need to check your history

no, let's put it this way:

No guns, entire civilizations have been purged from history anyway, one bloody swing of a sword at a time.  Check recent events in parts of Africa....it still happens

It's not "OUR" responsibility, it's the responsibility of the individual person who pulled the trigger.  You can't hold all gun owners responsible for the actions of some wacko.  Not sure if that's the point you're trying to make, but when you want all to give up their rights for the actions of a few, the essentially what you're saying     

I'm going to make this as clear as I can, and keep in mind that I'm not belittling you in anyway, but am trying to make clear my point of view. 

What I think it is you stand for based on what I've read, and feel free to make it clear if you feel differently, is that you want to trade your rights and the rights of everybody else even if they don't agree with you for the illusion of safety.  The cold hard truth in life is that if you're suddenly faced with a person who for whatever reason wants to take your life and you're unable to defend yourself, chances are you're going to die.  The "Illusion" is that the police/government will protect you, but in reality, the police force's job is to catch your murderer...not to save your life.  There is no escaping this, for there is no way to prevent something you don't know is coming, no way for the police to arrest or prevent before a crime has been committed.  Only your own actions can save you in a dire situation. 

So, if you're walking down your street, and some phsyco comes at you with a gun, with a knife, with a friggin golf club, with the intent of taking your life and there's no cop in sight, you'd better pray that that neighbor you fear who did nothing wrong other then uphold his right to keep and bear arms is around to save your life

I really hope you'll think about that   

ummmm....not sure what your point is, considering this:

...is EXACTLY my point

The rest of your quote is pretty much spot on imho.  There is always that possibility something will happen, no matter how rare, and if you can't protect yourself or your family, nobody else likely will. 

There's a simple slogan out there that's used for bumper stickers, but it's so true it's brilliant.  'When they outlaw guns, only outlaws have them'.  Them and the police... that's a whole other argument on why it's not good when the Gov. are the only people armed..

Gun crime higher in America than any other country. There is very little gun crime in the Uk becuase they are banned. Civilians do not need guns.

Governments need them for authority and keeping peace. What does a civilians need a guns for, cleaning their teeth?

For fighting back when the military or law enforcement doesn't happen to be standing right next to them as they're getting raped, robbed, or assaulted. I hear from the grapevine that doesn't happen all that often.

Politicians make the descisions that guide the actions of the military and other enforcement agencies!
Or are we unware of the KGB and the Waffen SS of Russia and Nazi Germany respectively? Two orginizations that weren't politicians but were definantly affected by them.

That, and I don't need a gun pointed to someone's head to do them harm. I could easily just do it with a pencil or my bare hands. It's too idealistic to believe otherwise.

I love the 2nd.

The only thing is that people get their hands on guns and do something stupid with them. If the owner is responsible then its ok. But I understand peoples concerns. Maybe having stricter weapon control would make our country safer.

What most people who try to work on gun control figure is the bullet. For example, my state legislator is trying to get the .50 caliber bullet banned. She believes that there's no need for a bullet powerful enough to rip your head off from over 200 yards away. Of course, others will complain that if there's no .50 caliber bullet, what about the rifles that use them? People use those for hunting. You will have completely just made their time in getting a license and ammo, hunting gear, the rifle, a whole ton of stuff, a complete waste of time (P.S. - I'm with these guys). Of course, it naturally makes them angry. So, they fight back. With marches and pickets.

Yeah I have to agree with AA here. Nobody needs a fully automatic weapon in my opinion, as there is no use for them (except for in the military).

People who collect tons of guns/swords and other weapons just so they can have them.....well, I don't understand that. One weapon is enough to protect yourself with. If it's hunting rifles, then that's different because you need different rifles for different terrains. But a sword? What would you do with it besides look at it, or maybe swing it around a bit?

As radical as it sounds, I don't believe there should be any regulation on the type of weapons people can own. 

The Second Amendment doesn't say .."the right to keep and bear arms...as long as it's not bigger then such and such a caliber."  I know all the arguments about "But the Founding Fathers didn't know guns would someday be able to do this, and they never thought society would decide that." 

#1, people forget that at that time, people HAD the most advanced rifles in the world.  Many if not most civilians HAD rifles for home defense that were equivalent to our most advanced combat rifles.  It's only in recent times that armies have consistently had weapons that were better or even as good as were in the civilian field.

#2, there is a fundamental American principle that is broken by the banning of firearms: The ASSUMPTION of guilt on the part of legal purchasers of firearms that they're out to do something wrong, when there is no evidence to support this. 

and #3, there is a dangerous and Very slippery slope when you allow the government, ANY government, to slowly but surely take your means of defense.  Maltese hit it perfectly: Nazi German, Communist Russia, and most other totalitarian regimes have set a very clear pattern that we should learn from, and one of their trademarks is the confiscation of weapons from their populace. 

I'm not saying the gun laws banning machine guns back in the 20's were forwarding a Nazi agenda.  I'm not saying the restrictions placed on gun ownership in the 90's were directly linked to a desire to take us to Communism.  And I'm not saying that the even stricter laws that politicians want to further impose now are linked to a scheme to take us to either of these systems.  These are steps taken by people who I think have the honest intention of doing good as they see it.

What I AM saying is that no matter how good the intentions, they mean nothing if a stripping of our basic Right to defend ourselves is the cost.  And it is the cost many people are willing to pay for the promise of safety, while they get back little to no results, or as in many cases have shown do the reverse of the promised bliss and tranquility.  The ironic this is, the more gun laws Fail *every school shooting was in 'Gun Free Zones,' probably Every work place shooting broke dozens of city ordinances against allowing LAW ABIDING Citizens from carrying guns, and the list goes on*, the more laws are suggested because the last flurry of them apparently wasn't strong enough..... the sad thing is so many people agree

It is part of the natural order that governments wish to consolidate power, and the only way for them to do this is to take the rights of their citizens.  They do it in the name of public order and safety........yet I wonder how many of us feel as safe and secure at home as our grandparents and their grandparents did...