![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
2 pennies...
Dec. 17th, 2012 09:51 amMy thoughts on gun control.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The second amendment's purpose was to create a police force before the concept existed. It's purpose is to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the details of law to each state. A person's ability to create a militia must be approved by the state. It is not a right. Gun ownership laws vary from state to state. Where local state armies no longer exist, State Troopers and Police force have taken over that role.
Gun ownership; self defense and defense of property, hunting or provision, sport, defense of nation.
In first world countries an effective police force is all that is necessary. Death rate due to violent crime in countries where gun ownership is highly controlled is exceptionally low. Gun crime next to unheard of. In my family (5 siblings) EVERYONE has been assaulted at gunpoint, but I have not as I live in the United Kingdom. I have not ever been assaulted with any kind of weapon other than bravado despite living and working in London on and off for 25 years.
We have riots and protests here in the UK too. People have died due to police brutality. But not from being shot with real guns. Police use riot gear, shields, batons and yes some do have guns with rubber bullets (which can fatal wound and have caused horrible damage). Those armed police... were they out to get you or were they there to protect other citizens civil liberties to right over destruction of property and business and not be looted by gangs (unapproved private militias). What escalations are the state forced to go to in order to protect civil liberties? Things are clearly no right when civilians are hurt by police nor when destruction happens instead of peaceful protest.
7 years ago I would have said that private citizens no longer required to hunt for their existence, but that has changed. But that is also what hunting licensees are for. You can't buy an AK47 in the UK and license it for duck hunting. Likewise "sport shooting" is highly regulated to official international registered sport contests such as the Olympics. You need to justify ownership. That seems to be lacking in all American arguments. NO ONE should own a hand gun for any reason. Hunting rifles - how many do you need? Surely not more than one. There is no reason ever to own any form of automatic.
Defense of the nation. Zombie Apocalypse. After all you need all those guns to shoot them in the head because that's the only thing that works. First Zombies aren't real. And it wouldn't work anyway because you would have to hit the amygdala every time because that's the only functioning part of the brain which is too difficult, requires multiple kill shots before you get bit anyway. The only way to kill a Zombie is with a chainsaw.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The second amendment's purpose was to create a police force before the concept existed. It's purpose is to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the details of law to each state. A person's ability to create a militia must be approved by the state. It is not a right. Gun ownership laws vary from state to state. Where local state armies no longer exist, State Troopers and Police force have taken over that role.
Gun ownership; self defense and defense of property, hunting or provision, sport, defense of nation.
In first world countries an effective police force is all that is necessary. Death rate due to violent crime in countries where gun ownership is highly controlled is exceptionally low. Gun crime next to unheard of. In my family (5 siblings) EVERYONE has been assaulted at gunpoint, but I have not as I live in the United Kingdom. I have not ever been assaulted with any kind of weapon other than bravado despite living and working in London on and off for 25 years.
Also, when the G-20 was in town and I saw 15 buses of armed police roll down Carson St. I realized that civil liberties can be wiped out at the drop of a hat and that no amount of personal armament would be effective. (a friend in the US)
We have riots and protests here in the UK too. People have died due to police brutality. But not from being shot with real guns. Police use riot gear, shields, batons and yes some do have guns with rubber bullets (which can fatal wound and have caused horrible damage). Those armed police... were they out to get you or were they there to protect other citizens civil liberties to right over destruction of property and business and not be looted by gangs (unapproved private militias). What escalations are the state forced to go to in order to protect civil liberties? Things are clearly no right when civilians are hurt by police nor when destruction happens instead of peaceful protest.
7 years ago I would have said that private citizens no longer required to hunt for their existence, but that has changed. But that is also what hunting licensees are for. You can't buy an AK47 in the UK and license it for duck hunting. Likewise "sport shooting" is highly regulated to official international registered sport contests such as the Olympics. You need to justify ownership. That seems to be lacking in all American arguments. NO ONE should own a hand gun for any reason. Hunting rifles - how many do you need? Surely not more than one. There is no reason ever to own any form of automatic.
Defense of the nation. Zombie Apocalypse. After all you need all those guns to shoot them in the head because that's the only thing that works. First Zombies aren't real. And it wouldn't work anyway because you would have to hit the amygdala every time because that's the only functioning part of the brain which is too difficult, requires multiple kill shots before you get bit anyway. The only way to kill a Zombie is with a chainsaw.