Tactical Experts Destroy the NRA's Heroic Gunslinger Fantasy

"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."

As much as I believe in this Amendment, I do agree with RyuJin in the responsible ownership of firearms.

This is what I would propose IF I WERE KING OF THE FOREST...

Full Background check with a valid appeals process.
40 hour gun safety class to include firing and stripping a weapon.
Certification in Rifle, Pistol, and/or shotgun
Class in Laws and the application of the laws regarding gun violence and self defense.
2 years minimum of active Honorable Military Service in any branch including National Guard.
Yearly qualifying in Rifle ,Pistol, and/or shotgun

So as you can see, although I am a staunch believer in the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms, it must be done in a manner that will uphold the reasons our forefathers placed it in the Constitution. I believe that as a citizen, it is your duty to serve, and if you want to claim conscientious objector, NO GUNS FOR YOU! After all, if you don't want to protect your country and your freedom, you shouldn't be privileged to be protected by it.

I heard the argument once that "I didn't choose to be born here, so why should I have to serve." You don't. MOVE OUT OF THIS COUNTRY!

Maybe I should have put this in the Rant Thread. :woohoo: :evil:

I was given a link some time ago and have wondered what others would say about it.
Keep in mind, I'm not stating my own opinion or stance on this topic, I'm genuinely curious about what others make of this and nothing more.

Here is the link.

I'm not sure if it's exactly relevant but I'm certainly not going to create yet another thread for a similar topic.

I think comparing the murder rates of the US with any country is a bit of a mistake... it shouldn't be about seeing 'which country is better'. The question should be 'what more can we do for our country'?

Edan wrote: I think comparing the murder rates of the US with any country is a bit of a mistake... it shouldn't be about seeing 'which country is better'. The question should be 'what more can we do for our country'?

I would agree that comparing the rates does not provide a solution to the problem. What I think it does offer is a comparison of policies in use and their effectiveness in known populations.

In almost all cases, it seems that the issue of violent crimes is addressed by either arming or disarming the populace… But no matter what the weapon is, I do not believe it addresses the core issue. Which is why it happens in the first place.

Where most people that are “pro” fire arms use self-defense as their primary reason I would not. Well, not self-defense against other people. Growing up in the country and planning on returning, the fire arm plays a crucial role in the goings on of the day to day life of a farmer, rancher or homesteader. From protecting your livestock, crops, pets and family to maintaining a healthy level of wild animals that are quite destructive; like feral hogs or rabbits. Poisons snakes that lose their fear of man and wonder into the yard are extremely dangerous to all and also need to be dispatched. The safest and most effective way or dealing with all these issues is a good rifle or shot gun.

For me, a fire arm is an essential tool, like a hammer or an axe, and a part of everyday life.

Just a few weeks ago, my Aunt had her Blue Pit mauled to death by a Mountain lion. And previous to that I was asked to go and thin out the hog population because they were tearing everything up.

The issue which I think we need to ask ourselves about it, do we really want all firearms gone or do we want people to stop doing bad and harmful things?

Edan wrote: I think comparing the murder rates of the US with any country is a bit of a mistake... it shouldn't be about seeing 'which country is better'. The question should be 'what more can we do for our country'?

And America used to be like that. One of the most famous Presidential speeches in our history ends with almost that exact quote, and it was only like 45 years ago. But the American people seem to have shifted the other direction. All I hear about now is "How can the government fix things? What can the Government do for me?" People don't seem to want to take personal responsibility for anything, least of all their own personal safety. When bad things happen how many people ask "What did I do? What could I have done differently?" It's always someone else's fault. "My coffee was too hot. The floor was too wet. No one stopped him from shooting at me." You know what, maybe our problems would start to go away if we tried to fix them ourselves and stopped blaming other people.

Phortis Nespin wrote:
...So as you can see, although I am a staunch believer in the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms...

i can see that you have redefined the words "stanch" and "believer" and "all" and "citizen"

maybe you heard this argument, ONCE

if so, it is likely that when you heard it it was in exactly the same way i am hearing it now, from you

i say this because no one over 17 (or relevant) uses this argument so its pretty silly to reference it as if it matters

Phortis Nespin wrote: You don't. MOVE OUT OF THIS COUNTRY!...

well, in general the whole "if you dont like the way things are then you should leave" argument is just absurd, really really absurd, since this country was founded by a bunch of people who didnt like the way things were

every civil advancement thats ever happened in the course of human civilization was done to change the way things were - and we all benefit from those changes, so there are good reasons to respect the process of dissent and disagreement

Phortis Nespin wrote: Maybe I should have put this in the Rant Thread. :woohoo: :evil:

i cant help but wonder if youre even being serious - the ideas youve expressed here are very well considered, if your aim is to get under someones skin or ruffle feathers

otherwise its just more ideological rhetoric

Wescli Wardest wrote: Where most people that are “pro” fire arms use self-defense as their primary reason I would not.

i just wanted to respond particularly to this

i use self defense as my primary pragmatic justification, as a city dweller the dangerous wildlife i encounter mostly walks on two legs, and i MOSTLY know how to avoid it, which works a lot better than shooting it lol but its still a valid point imo

but philosophically my belife in the right to own firearms is founded on:

1) it is a constitutional right - people like to scoff at this lately but its a big deal to me

the more we mess around with the constitution, the more we are going to suffer for it, i think this is easy to justify with a review of the history civilizations

2) freedom means being free to decide for yourself, and being responsible for yourself - imo, it is a very serious issue to restrict the rights of free people because we are afraid of the very small minority who misuse or take advantage of those rights - more appropriate to invest in bettering the institutions which fortify us

better education - better economic opportunity - better cultural dialogue ect ect - work to provide people with more opportunity and more freedom and a more culturally sophisticated world view than the last generation, across a broad range of categories, and all manner of social ills will improve - restrict the dialogue to narrow and divisive perspectives and you end up with a narrow minded and divided community

basically i think it is a better solution to expand our competence than to restrict our capabilities and i apply that logic to all issues

correction to my previous post

Phortis Nespin wrote: So as you can see, although I am a staunch believer in the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms

i can see that you have redefined the words "staunch" believe" "rights" "citizens" and "all"

Phortis Nespin wrote: I heard the argument once that "I didn't choose to be born here, so why should I have to serve."

maybe you heard this argument once

if so, i suspect that it was only once, and it was likely in exactly the same way i am hearing it now, from you

as a rumor of an argument that doesnt really exist, but gives you a chance to say something opinionated and obnoxious

i say this because no one over 17 (or relevant) would say it, nor would anyone over 17 accept it, and so it is silly to reference it in this conversation as if it were "a real thing"

Phortis Nespin wrote: You don't. MOVE OUT OF THIS COUNTRY!

this is the obnoxious part i mentioned

in general, the "if you dont like the way things are then you should leave" argument is absurd, really really absurd, since this country was founded by a bunch of people who didnt like the way things were

every civil advancement thats ever happened in the course of human civilization was done to change the way things were - and we all benefit from those changes, so there are good reasons to respect the process of dissent and disagreement

i cant help but wonder if youre even being serious - the ideas youve expressed here are very well considered, if your aim is to get under someones skin or ruffle feathers

otherwise its just more unproductive, quarrelsome ideological rhetoric which detracts from the adult conversation

surely youre just teasing?

It should never be illegal for one who wishes to defend themselves and others. The police can't teleport. It takes time for them to get there and even then there's quite a few crooked cops out there. Almost all the time when a government does restrict weapons, it was to control the population more easily. Even Japan did that when farmers and other folk aside from Samurai couldn't own weapons, which led to some newly created weapons made with farm equipment.

Phortis Nespin wrote:

"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."

As much as I believe in this Amendment, I do agree with RyuJin in the responsible ownership of firearms.

This is what I would propose IF I WERE KING OF THE FOREST...

Full Background check with a valid appeals process.
40 hour gun safety class to include firing and stripping a weapon.
Certification in Rifle, Pistol, and/or shotgun
Class in Laws and the application of the laws regarding gun violence and self defense.
2 years minimum of active Honorable Military Service in any branch including National Guard.
Yearly qualifying in Rifle ,Pistol, and/or shotgun

So as you can see, although I am a staunch believer in the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms, it must be done in a manner that will uphold the reasons our forefathers placed it in the Constitution. I believe that as a citizen, it is your duty to serve, and if you want to claim conscientious objector, NO GUNS FOR YOU! After all, if you don't want to protect your country and your freedom, you shouldn't be privileged to be protected by it.

I heard the argument once that "I didn't choose to be born here, so why should I have to serve." You don't. MOVE OUT OF THIS COUNTRY!

Maybe I should have put this in the Rant Thread. :woohoo: :evil:

Sorry Phortis, but not all of us have the luxury of being able to serve our country. I tried to enlist several times and was disqualified from entry due to mental illness diagnosis.

Many want to serve but are not able.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk