Summations Only

You wouldn't have to necessarily modify the Bill of Rights. Destructive Devices are already regulated along side the 2nd amendment, you just just tack on "and lasers", or whatever, to something like that.

I used buy my ammo much the same way, but phone instead of online.Back a few (well maybe more than just a few) years ago when I was doing lots of competitive shooting it was not unusual for me to buy and use several bricks (1000 rounds) of ammo a month.I don't see the problem?Edited by jar, : fix terminology

I fail to see anything in this sentence that I can make any sense of. What does my alleged fear of embarrassment have to do with Australia having some of the strictest gun restrictions in the world?I'm not trying to change you guys' collectively fucked-up minds... I'm just providing my opinion. I apologise that it gets your panties in a wad.As for why I don't think my friend should be able to ebay his toys and go buy guns? - because toys are fun, not deadly. (don't have the patience to reply separately to CS's post asking that).I like how you guys have attacked me personally on this topic and pretty much anyone dissenting from your view. It is an example of the type of American politics that I'm so pleased to be away from.

Well, there's a procedure by which the Constitution becomes amended. You'd have to convince a lot of people that the risk of a handful of nuts with firearms (or laser arms, I guess) outweighed the cost of ending a uniquely American tradition and the risks of disarming the populace and leaving them unable to defend themselves. If you could convince people that it was worth it I guess you could change the Constitution. But you can't even convince any of us that it would be worth it. You've barely even tried.

I'm simply noting your new justification for disarming Americans: other countries do it, and the people of those countries disapprove of American gun ownership, and as a result when you're in those countries you feel embarrassed to be identified as an American.

I never intended to. I only intended to express my attitude towards the topic. I'm not a political activist, and I don't live in the states presently. What you do is your own business. All I ever intended to do was add my voice to the many around the world that view the entrenched attitudes on this topic as unfortunate, and backwards.

And it's the fact that you can't explain why that led me to characterize your argument as inchoate and fear-based. You've given no evidence whatsoever that I'm wrong about that.

There are so many fallacies in this statement... let's see...I never suggested disarming Americans, therefore I need no justification for something I didn't suggest. What I DID was suggest that the pro-gun attitude is considered insane by many of us outside the US, and a chunk inside as well.Other countries disarm, and the people of those countries disapprove of American gun ownership - again, it misses the point. The point is not that other countries disapprove, the point is that SO many other countries have moved on from this frontier mentality and have found more a more peaceful society by rejecting the notion that well-armed means well-safe....as a result, when you're in those countries you feel embarrassed to be an American - THAT point is close to being right. People in the last week have asked me several times, "So when you were in Texas, could you buy a gun in a bank? in a Wal-Mart? yes? CRAZY!!" - and I simply have to agree with them, it is crazy.Bowing out now, I know how this will go, each sentence will be nitpicked, and unwarranted conclusions will be reached about what I've said. I'm tired of having to reiterate the fact that I am expressing a personal opinion, and have no desire or interest in changing yours.

I don't fear it, I find it stupid to arm civilians. Period. Has nothing to do with fear, at all.Civilians cannot judge a situation properly to be allowed to defend themselves with a gun. Police officers and military personel have a hard enough time doing it and they are actually trained to do so.Civilians should not be allowed to carry out deadly force when they see fit.Hunting rifle, I'm cool with it - to include shotguns. But handguns for defense or to rise up against the US is stupid.- Oni

You know what a PRATT is yes? well, in this case I wouldn't say I've refuted this point 1,000 times, but at least 3. In this thread AND the other thread, I have posted a link to a map of mass shootings in America... far more than you'll find in any other country. THAT is my evidence that there is something wrong with regard to guns and America.

Well since 85% of us think Jesus is coming back to save us all, this may be a futile attempt at persuading a large group of idiots. America makes me sad because of this, and the gun control issues, and the homophobia, and the racism, and the fat people. You don't think it's worth it not having armed civiians?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I mean, I get it - you're scared of guns

---

No. I'm scared of widely available guns. I'm scared of psychopaths getting a hold of them, which is something that is ridiculously easy in the US. Hence all the killing sprees like last week.

quote:

---

When you carry a rifle, everybody knows that you are

---

Did the people in Denver know?

quote:

---

that's the reason why so many Americans are killed by handguns

---

Why is the number of americans killed by gunfire so widely out of proportion compared to the rest of the first world?Personally, I don't believe the US has more psychopathic lunatics. It's just that guns are so mainstream that everyone can easily get them.This seems logical to me. If anyone has another explanation, I'ld be glad to hear it.

quote:

---

which is unique in that it protects, in perpetuity, the military capacity of the American people to violently overthrow our own government. I know that you don't have anything similar. In fact it probably seems inconceivable that the Belgian government would ever legally enshrine the right of Belgians to violently overthrow the government.

---

That seems incredibly strange to me. Pointless even. Why make such a law? Would it be legal for you to violently overthrow the Obama administration? No, off course not.And if the US would suddenly fall under the rule of a dictator or similar, where such action would indeed be called for, do you think this amendment would be worth anything at all? Would it still even exist?Yes, it seems inconceivable that our government would install such a rule. But, in my view anyway, not for the reason you seem to suggest. But rather because such a right would be pointless anyway. Because governments that deserve to be overthrown violently usually don't allow you to do so, you see...I get what you mean though. I understand the underlying idea that if the people have a stash of arms, it would be easier to start some revolution type thing to overthrow an occupier or dictator or whatever. I just don't think the pro's outweigh the cons here.Bottom line for me is that it's far to easy to get a hold of guns in the US, that's basicly it. We have shooting ranges here in belgium as well you know. We also have hobbyists here who like to play with guns. But these people are heavily screened before they receive a gun. It's very controlled and it takes weeks before you actually get the gun that you buy.I would not feel safe knowing that my neighbour has a military arsenal in his basement.Edited by ScientificBob, : No reason given.

But can you explain what and why is wrong?

Then it doesn't make much sense to have a law that says you can arm a militia to fight the government, when you can't even afford to buy a mini gun or lots of rifles n' stuff.Who do you think you're going up against with a couple of handguns and a Winchester 30-30, an army of Hare Krishna's?- Oni

Jesus Christ (Slave's voice)- Oni