So you think you know the 2nd Amendment

[ApatheticNoMore]

Don't get me wrong, I hope we never have the need for violent/armed resistance. I do think the powers that be are kept in check to a certain degree because such resistance is a possibility and because they realize it would be impossible to squelch

Quite impossible to prove, quite impossible to prove the powers that be are kept in check either (I mean if "in check" doesn't stop things like the NDAA, torture, presidential murder, crackdowns on dissent, drones over U.S. cities, cops killing innocent people ...) then it's not exactly particularly effective. But it could be worse? Well things could *always* be worse... So how would one know things are kept in check or not?

There's an alternate argument that the powers that be become more militarized themselves in a heavily armed society, they put on the full riot gear and Mayberry orders a tank, a type of arms race (although to some extent this is more widespread than just in the U.S.)

Never mind that it seems impossible to get a critical mass to keep anything in check just via normal civics stuff (voting in a meaningful way - not lesser evilism!!!, protest, etc.). So people too indifferent to even bother but they want armed revolution, well if that's the case, it's really messed up. I would like to have seen everyone who wants to keep things in check via guns to form mass protests to the NDAA. Yea, nada (excuse my anagram).

[freein05]

Are people forgetting we vote in our leaders and they represent us. That is why we are a democracy and not a banana republic. Our form of government has lasted for over 2 hundred years. We don't want a few hot heads or disgruntled losers to destroy our country. I have not cared for a lot of our leaders and at the next election I would do what I could to get them defeated at the polls. That is the way a democracy works.

[ApatheticNoMore]

Are people forgetting we vote in our leaders and they represent us. That is why we are a democracy and not a banana republic. Our form of government has lasted for over 2 hundred years. We don't want a few hot heads or disgruntled losers to destroy our country. I have not cared for a lot of our leaders and at the next election I would do what I could to get them defeated at the polls. That is the why a democracy works.

It's a pretty rigged game, for instance congress has ratings that are consistently through the floor, less than 20% approval and so on, and I agree with that assessment, they *are* that bad! But then nearly all incumbants get reelected, mostly because the congressional districts are so badly jerrymandered they are often completely controlled by one party. Then there's the whole lesser of two evils game, the electorial college, etc.. The end result is I doubt the legistlation we get is what almost anyone supports! Social security cuts? Are we getting those because "the people demanded it!". Doubtful.

Still I have very little patience for anyone who doesn't even want to try to change things by non-violent (which does not always mean risk free!) means and just wants to talk about a violent revolution (and it is just talk! it isn't even like we have a violent revolution, not that it would be so great ....)

[freein05]

I finally got a Democrat congressmen because California a few years ago passed a law that puts in place some type of impartial redistricting method. This method was used after the last census. Before the new method was used my district looked like a jigsaw puzzle.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Oh, not dehumanizing at all....they're very human, just a breed of human I find icky.

I knew a man who collected instruments of torture. He found them fascinating. I know another person who was arrested for the most alarming collection of child pornography imaginable. A family member loves to salivate over the bloodiest battles in history, as though the only thing that happened on those fields was brilliant strategy. These people share a common trait with gun fanatics: they are able to completely see past the immense human suffering caused by the object of their love and affection, as though it simply doesn't exist. That breed of human is simply scary to me {shrug}

It's my personal belief that the majority of politically active gun lovers -- as opposed to people who happen to own a gun -- have a fearful, dangerous and rather scary worldview, and I'm sick of being asked to see it as normal behavior in a civilized society. It isn't.

We can't stuff this genie back in the bottle, but we can call a spade a spade. Stop pretending the adoration and collection of lethal weapons is something to be respected. It's really just strange and sad.

Puglogic, Thank You for posting your take on this. I have always been afraid of guns since my father pulled a gun on my mother back in 1977 as I posted on the Connecticut shootings thread. I have never really thought much about the kind of person who collects guns - and I have known of a few over my years, and yes they seem to me to have the qualities you speak of. That scary worldview and the obliviousness to any human suffering weapons can and do cause. I couldn't agree with you more on this. I do however think this does not describe 100% of gun owners by any means. OTOH it doesn't take but a few less than stable people to create seering national tragedies, either. Rob

[Zoebird]

I know collectors of all kinds. They are all a little bit odd in my book, becuase they collect things and I find that odd.

But, of these collectors, I know several who collect guns.

One collects handguns. He likes to shoot targets with them at a range. He keeps all of his guns locked up in his home, and he keeps a locker at the range with the ammunition that he prefers. He does this just so that there won't be any accidents in the home -- even though he lives alone. All of the guns are kept nice and safe.

Another collects hunting rifles. He hunts deer, duck, goose, and elk. Apparently these require different kinds of guns, and/or he likes figuring out which guns are best for which kind of hunting scenario -- since all are different. He also teaches gun/hunting safety classes for families who are into hunting or getting into hunting (particularly this second group), which he markets as a "$10 donation" class through the local hunting stores. He uses his own guns to train a lot of people how to handle guns safely, how to shoot (they start with targets of course), and then later how to hunt.

Another collects antique military weapons -- pretty much anything WWII or prior. He's able to shoot all of them -- as he likes that process. I don't know how many weapons he has.

None of them have a 'scary worldview and obliviousness to any human suffering weapons can and do cause." If anything, they are *far more* clear on the issue than people who just out-and-out fear guns. It's the fear of them that makes you dangerous -- around guns, to yourself and others.

It's partly why I consider myself dangerous around guns. I know that my grandfathers -- who had guns, but nto really "collections" i would say -- taught me how to shoot, how to handle weapons. But, that was back when I was 12, I had a few days with them and the guns, and nothing "stuck." So, I consider myself a big risk around a gun.

Most of the people whom I know who own guns are just normal people who like sports. Seriously. They like to shoot at targets or go hunting. They aren't interested in hurting people, and they are just as shocked and hurt by these occurrences as the rest of us. And then, they get "beat up" for being gun owners after the fact -- being called "icky" or mentally unstable if they don't have the individuals "right/approved" number and kinds of guns. So, they get considered "part of the problem" of these situations and "oblivious" to the suffering -- none of which is true. That's got to be really annoying.

[puglogic]

Sorry, but I'm just not going to drink the Kool-Aid any more.

The sole purpose of guns is to kill things. I have a gun because it can kills things. Whether it's the legitimate killing of food, or the fantasy killing of other human beings (been to a range?), these objects exist to kill things -- to make them bleed and die at my whim. Those who are obsessed with them -- the "Pry my gun from my cold dead fingers" crowd, politically active, "I should be able to have fully automatic weapons if I want one" -- are not obsessed because they're pretty little pieces of gleaming metal sculpture. They're obsessed because of guns' power to make things bleed and die if I want them to bleed and die.

Killing power. Cover it up with as many layers of pretty, and sport, and "my right" that you want. It's all about the thrill of owning killing power. Shooting an AR-17 at a paper target that looks like a person is about killing power. Gun shows are about killing power. Call of Duty is about killing power. The fantasy of killing is powerful in our society, in our kids -- because no one bats an eyelash at it any more. It's "normal".

Future generations, if there are any, may look back on our acceptance of this trend in our species -- our treating this delight in killing power (real and fantasy) as an innocent, normal, fun human activity -- and wonder, "What were they, stupid? Why did they possibly think that was okay? What did they THINK was going to happen?"

I too know lots of folks who have guns, very decent, lovely people. Some of them hang around this forum. I myself am a normal person with a gun. I like mine, I have it for what I think are the right reasons, and I would not want it to be taken away. But I don't pretend it's anything but what it is: a machine that allows me to take the lives of things if I decide I want/need to do so. The thought of devoting my time, money, voice, energy to making sure that anyone anywhere can have any sort of killing device they want? (the NRA) I don't think that's good for us as a species, on any level, and I'm not supporting it no matter what shape the 2nd Amendment gets twisted into.

I know, I'm fringe. Twenty-six body bags later, people who were no more human to the shooter than the baddies on the screen in Halo, and I'm officially off the deep end. No more glorifying killing power for me - in reality or in fantasy.

[goldensmom]

The sole purpose of guns is to kill things. I have a gun because it can kills things. Whether it's the legitimate killing of food, or the fantasy killing of other human beings (been to a range?), these objects exist to kill things -- to make them bleed and die at my whim.

Are you using the word 'guns' in referring to all weaponry or differentiating between handguns and shot guns/rifles? I respectively disagree unless you consider hitting an inanimate tin can or clay target a ‘thing to be killed’ with either a hand gun or shot gun/rifle. No blood shed, no life lost there.

[puglogic]

Guns (with few exceptions) are manufactured to kill things. That's what they do: they fire a projectile so you can kill something from a distance without having to grapple hand-to-hand with it. That most folks (like me) only use them to shoot tin cans is a wonderful thing. But nobody's lobbying Congress for the right to shoot clay pigeons with a Bushmaster, or have a concealed carry permit so they can peg a few Coke bottles in an emergency.

[Gregg]

Guns (with few exceptions) are manufactured to kill things. That's what they do: they fire a projectile so you can kill something from a distance without having to grapple hand-to-hand with it. That most folks (like me) only use them to shoot tin cans is a wonderful thing. But nobody's lobbying Congress for the right to shoot clay pigeons with a Bushmaster, or have a concealed carry permit so they can peg a few Coke bottles in an emergency.

I agree with what you say in this post pug, guns are a tool invented specifically to make killing more efficient. Other uses have been developed and are now common in our society, but you are correct about the original purpose. However, one key element that can not be discounted is intent. Accidents aside, no gun will kill unless the person using it does so with the intent to kill. I just can not get by the notion that it makes more sense to address the person than the tool even if I realize how much more difficult that is. Maybe we just have to agree to disagree here to keep the discussion moving.

What I'm not really clear on is, specifically, what you're proposing re: new gun control legislation. Do you have specifics in mind or are we still in the broad brush stroke stage?