Gun Control & 2nd Amendment

I've noticed that in recent years (in the US) there is a movement away from gun control to gun convictions. As an example, if you are caught selling a kilo of coke you will get 2 years. If you are caught selling a kilo of coke AND carrying a concealed weapon you will get 5 years. Gun control has been and is ineffective so lawmakers seem to have shifted from control to use.Also, if most people were honest about it they would say that they own firearms because they like firearms. I'll be the first to admit that shooting guns is fun. A gun enthusiast is enthusiastic about GUNS, not home protection. You don't need an arsenal of 15 handguns and assorted rifles to protect your home, and yet I know many people that would consider such an arsenal "a good start". Of all the ammo sold across the US how many rounds are actually fired at the target the ammo was designed for? Maybe 0.1%? Do you fire off more shots killing deer or "sighting in the rifle" (code for "I like to shoot guns")?What the US has is a society enamored with their firearms.

Isn't that called "Election Day"?

I think the answer can be found in our history. From the very start colonists needed "protection" from indigenous populations, and it remained that way until the late 1800's. For roughly 250 years those on the fringes of settlements were under constant threat.My father became interested in our family history a while back. He actually found journals written by distant relatives as they crossed the great plains towards Kansas. There were more than one story of indian attacks. Many of my distant family were killed by indians making the move west. The threat from fellow americans was just as great during both the gold rush and cattle wars of the mid 1800's. There were vast stretches of land with no police, no government presence. You literally settled things yourself, and it didn't always turn out well.On top of this, you also had immigrants who had emigrated from very tough conditions. A good example is the Scotch-Irish that settled in the hill country of West Virginia. These were people of Scottish descent who had been given land in Ireland in an attempt to gain a foothold in Ireland. They were hated by the Irish for generations and forced out of Ireland. They couldn't go back to Scotland and so they came here. Since then they have always been dispropotionately poor with little promise outside of coal mining. This has led to a community that is fiercly independent. Well, I don't know if independent is the right word here, it's tough to explain.In the end, the real difference here is the difference in history.

The quotes around protection were meant to imply sarcasm. Sorry if that didn't come across.If the early colonists were not armed there probably wouldn't be europeans here now. However, europeans could have made a bundle selling guns to warring native americans so we would probably still be talking about guns in america.

Yes. It may also explain why there is a different mentality between Europeans and Americans when it comes to guns.

What I am saying is that modern American views of gun ownership has been strongly influenced by American history. I am not saying that the Europeans who came to America were more violent than those who stayed in Europe. This history includes:1. a 250 year guerilla war between invading Europeans and the indigenous population.2. a lack of police and government presence in much of the new frontiers leading to unfettered violence between europeans.Guns were truly necessary for home security at one time from very real threats. I don't think this is true of the UK during the same time period. I really don't know what the Aussie attitude is towards guns. Anyone want to comment?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

But it's only bullying if you disagree with the legislation, right?

Why do a majority of voters elect them to office? Can you please show how the right to bear arms is a scriptural principle? He didn't say that they came from your god, nor your Bible. Try again. Jefferson was a Deist, not a christian.

This is a case of selective enforcement. The Feds have limited manpower and they do not want to alienate the public at large which is why they have decided to focus on the big growers.