Shooting of the Day
Out of context: Reply #2006
- Started
- Last post
- 2,778 Responses
- GM2784
In full disclosure, as some of you know from this and other threads, I actually am a licensed gun owner and without going into my life story, former military who was properly trained. Am I all "God alone lets me own my guns?" NO! Do I feel average citizens should be allowed to own high power military grade weapons? NO! I'm actually extremely against it.
While I do believe in having the ability to legally protect my family and my property, I don't believe a semi or automatic rifle accomplishes that end. The fourth rule of gun safety is "Be sure of your target and what is behind it." A 223 round from an AR15 will go through a target and quite possibly the wall behind it. So, unless you want to kill your neighbor, it's a shitty home defense weapon. Furthermore, unless your house is about to be overrun by 30 or more people. you don't need that level of defense.
Most states, including Texas where I live are NOT shoot to kill but shoot to stop the threat. Meaning, IF you shoot someone who is threatening you in a manner that LEGALLY justifies that level of force and they stop, you can't keep shooting until they are dead. That's murder and you will be tried as such. My point is, you don't need a rifle with a 30 round magazine to stop a home invasion. If you think you do, you're probably a lousy shot and should consider not ever touching gun. Especially if you live next door to me.
The second amendment to the US constitution that so many love to hide behind states:
“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.”
Keep in mind this was put into place after America had just fought for it's independence and the forefathers had a legitimate reason to fear tyrannical rule. But we've come a long way since the days of loading black powder into muskets. (Side note: I've actually shot black powder and it's slow and messy business)
One way of interpreting the Amendment is the people have the right to bear arms PERIOD. But to me and I'm sure others there's that first part. "AS A WELL REGULATED MILITIA"
I think that the first step in ANY kind of gun control reform needs to start with that first part of the Amendment. Want to keep your high powered rifles in case of the government gets out of hand? Well then, you need to be serving in a regulated militia. Perhaps that is the first step in changing things that everyone on both sides can get behind.
That's just my two cents on it. This is all heartbreaking to me and it needs to change. Both sides need to get off their asses and come to the table.
- fascinating, thanks ... curious ... would you join the militia?monospaced
- Good question. Probably not.GM278
- I like this idea. Do you think this would neutralize the "My name will be on a gov list" fear?R_Kercz
- If you want to be in said regulated militia then being on a govt list shouldn't be a fear but reason enough.GM278
- A well organized militia will never take down the govt. They have an army. Tanks, jets, missiles, bombs. But have fun thinking that.severian
- ^ exactlyRamanisky2
- I don't think that at all. I am suggesting a modification to the amendment that in doing so regulates who has these kinds of weapons.GM278
- a well organized militia is government run, btw, it's not a grass roots thing, never has been, never will, never intended to bemonospaced
- I agree. I wouldn't expect it to be self regulating. That seems dangerous in itself. I don't profess to think I have the solution to all this.GM278
- But someone needs to start having some ideas that both sides can get behind. This has gone on long enough.GM278
- < I can agree with that and I find the militia angle interesting. It's at least one avenue of adhering to the amendment yet placing some controls on guns.kirshar12
- "I need to legally be able to stockpile enough arms to take down the government that makes it legally possible."cannonball1978