I like your post, and the angle you come at it from, but I disagree with people freely able to get guns. I took a course in firearm safety and had to apply to obtain a license to obtain and possess firearms. I could have jumped through more hoops and got a restricted firearm permit, but I really have no use for a handgun.
Relatively speaking, we have very few shootings here, and even fewer instances of mass shootings, and I have never thought that anyone was going to try to take something that was mine at gunpoint.
I'm not a communist though, but I would like to live in a commune.
Canada is a strange land with a strange people. Typically areas with more severe gun control suffer from increases in violent crime rates including rape and murder. Canada and some Scandinavian countries beat this trend, I believe due to cultural and socio-economic policies that while not perfect are currently the envy of the world.
Yep, definitely not perfect, but I sure do love it here. Maybe someday, on your way to Alaska, you can stop in for a few days and check it out here. ;)
The communism is suggest that power must be taken and can not be given, and can only be taken by power of its people too...Gun is the easiest way to gain control and power.
WAAAYYY to many guns here in the United States. You can support the second amendment (right to bear arms) and still have common sense gun regulation. It's not one or the other. Military grade weapons in the hands of civilians is a recipe for a disaster (and future disasters). Just my opinion.
Military grade weapons are already banned and have been for decades. You can not support the constitution and gun regulation at the same time as they are opposing forces.
Military grade weapons are readily available on the streets today. "Bump Stocks" (which are legal) turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons or machine guns. Which was the case in the Vegas Massacre. And I can TOTALLY support the constitution and gun regulation at the same time - and I do. When the 2nd amendment was written (right to bear arms) it was written in the time of the musket - which took about 2 and a half minutes to drop the bullet and the gun powder into the nozzle of the gun before it was ready to fire. Advanced weaponry needs our attention via common sense gun regulation.
Not acknowledging that there is a problem . . . is the problem.
On the streets? Yes you can illegally buy anything, but laws affect nobody but those willing to follow them. But please try to go and legally purchase any military grade weapon. Come back when you have a fully automatic M-4 or a grenade/rocket launcher.
Actually trained soldiers like those in the British military could shoot 3 times a minute, elite units could shoot 4 times. And that was the musket. Fully automatic weaponry did exist when the constitution was written, and more to the point, the purpose of the constitution was to ensure the people would always have access to the same weaponry the government does.
Acting like guns are the problem, is the problem.
Countries with gun control or strait up bans often have mush higher murder rates, but nobody cares about murder, unless several are committed at one time.
Also, "bump stocks" do not turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones, they simulate a higher firing rate yes, but with an even further reduction in accuracy over truly automatic weaponry.
As anyone with proper training knows, automatic weaponry is only effective for cover fire. As targeted firing requires accuracy and even military grade automatic weaponry with bi/tripods trade accuracy for the ability to lay down effective suppressive fire.
I'd like to know what your opinion is on how people are supposed to stay safe if their ability to defend themselves is lessened. Even ignoring that the second amendment is intended to allow us to fight our government, how can people protect themselves from lesser criminals?
Its a damned thing how many Americans believe the lies about communism, specially in the South. Thank God for the Redneck Revolt.
I like your post, and the angle you come at it from, but I disagree with people freely able to get guns. I took a course in firearm safety and had to apply to obtain a license to obtain and possess firearms. I could have jumped through more hoops and got a restricted firearm permit, but I really have no use for a handgun.
Relatively speaking, we have very few shootings here, and even fewer instances of mass shootings, and I have never thought that anyone was going to try to take something that was mine at gunpoint.
I'm not a communist though, but I would like to live in a commune.
Canada is a strange land with a strange people. Typically areas with more severe gun control suffer from increases in violent crime rates including rape and murder. Canada and some Scandinavian countries beat this trend, I believe due to cultural and socio-economic policies that while not perfect are currently the envy of the world.
Yep, definitely not perfect, but I sure do love it here. Maybe someday, on your way to Alaska, you can stop in for a few days and check it out here. ;)
The communism is suggest that power must be taken and can not be given, and can only be taken by power of its people too...Gun is the easiest way to gain control and power.
Its funny to see you and your gramdpa agree on something.
WAAAYYY to many guns here in the United States. You can support the second amendment (right to bear arms) and still have common sense gun regulation. It's not one or the other. Military grade weapons in the hands of civilians is a recipe for a disaster (and future disasters). Just my opinion.
Military grade weapons are already banned and have been for decades. You can not support the constitution and gun regulation at the same time as they are opposing forces.
Military grade weapons are readily available on the streets today. "Bump Stocks" (which are legal) turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic weapons or machine guns. Which was the case in the Vegas Massacre. And I can TOTALLY support the constitution and gun regulation at the same time - and I do. When the 2nd amendment was written (right to bear arms) it was written in the time of the musket - which took about 2 and a half minutes to drop the bullet and the gun powder into the nozzle of the gun before it was ready to fire. Advanced weaponry needs our attention via common sense gun regulation.
Not acknowledging that there is a problem . . . is the problem.
On the streets? Yes you can illegally buy anything, but laws affect nobody but those willing to follow them. But please try to go and legally purchase any military grade weapon. Come back when you have a fully automatic M-4 or a grenade/rocket launcher.
Actually trained soldiers like those in the British military could shoot 3 times a minute, elite units could shoot 4 times. And that was the musket. Fully automatic weaponry did exist when the constitution was written, and more to the point, the purpose of the constitution was to ensure the people would always have access to the same weaponry the government does.
Acting like guns are the problem, is the problem.
Countries with gun control or strait up bans often have mush higher murder rates, but nobody cares about murder, unless several are committed at one time.
Also, "bump stocks" do not turn semi-automatic weapons into automatic ones, they simulate a higher firing rate yes, but with an even further reduction in accuracy over truly automatic weaponry.
As anyone with proper training knows, automatic weaponry is only effective for cover fire. As targeted firing requires accuracy and even military grade automatic weaponry with bi/tripods trade accuracy for the ability to lay down effective suppressive fire.
I'd like to know what your opinion is on how people are supposed to stay safe if their ability to defend themselves is lessened. Even ignoring that the second amendment is intended to allow us to fight our government, how can people protect themselves from lesser criminals?
Gun control is so stupid what we need is people control.