RE: The Gun Control Debate, there are actually THREE sides
It is such a strange situation and debate with not much of a solution that I can see. The gun owners I know are the safest and most responsible folks following the rules to the letter. I would feel 100% confident of not getting shot in their company with a loaded weapon.
But there are still shootings that wouldn't happen without guns.
So you tighten the laws around gun ownership and purchasing.......and the gun owners follow begrudgingly, and the criminals just continue to ignore those laws.
Well that didn't work.
So you try and get rid of them completely like Australia and then you have a mutiny on your hands because of an amendment to the constitution that was written when there were only muskets and the "hunters" want to keep their ARs.
I am neither for complete freedom or complete governmental control but there seems to be no middle ground that would work.
Fantastic post and good food for thought!
The middle ground is actually very strange.
All the democrons need to go take shooting lessons.
And all junior gang members need to be given some puppy time.
The gun shootings are a direct result of thugs not seeing a way forward in life. Crony capitalism puts things further and further out of the reach of the common person. And, when it gets to hard to get it the "correct" way, then you get it the thuggish way.
This is a direct result of the central banks control of money.
So, destroy the debt and death paradigm of the criminal banking cartels, then get some real rough and tumble play between boys and men.
And then, most of the gun violence goes away.
Indeed! They can blame Ted Nugent and the NRA so that they can get back to fleecing the sheep and running profitable prisons.
One thing that is true everywhere, is that people who have personal arms are victimized far less than people who are disarmed. This is why the murder rate in London is now higher than the murder rate in New York City.
Law abiding gun owners use their personal arms millions of time a year around the world to prevent being victimized by criminals. That's why law abiding gun owners have guns.
Yes I enjoy contemplating the perspective and case from both sides. I am stuck on the points that making laws to somehow control the people who don't follow laws is not very productive, and that people needing an AR for hunting or a musket-originated amendment in the USA doesn't seem to make sense either.
I do remember, in all my time in Houston, them saying if you wanna shoot someone, just drag them onto your property ;) I bet store robberies and home invasions are less likely to happen in areas of concealed carry than not.
First, regarding muskets, recall that government's best tech was the musket. Since the right of free people to defend themselves is the basis for the Second Amendment, it is necessary that the right to possess arms reflects adequately the technology progression.
If civilians have similar arms to government, government is necessarily restricted to that to which it's subjects are willing to tolerate. When government--or any gang of thugs--possesses significantly more effective weapons than it's subjects, that government inevitably devolves into tyranny.
We see this happening now across the EU.
Free Tommy!
Ah well that makes sense. If the thugs/government is going to come at you with muskets, you defend with muskets. If, 200 years later, they are going to come at you with AR-15s, then you have the right to bear that.
Never occurred to me thanks!