And it begins: Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence

[Neil]

It's fascinating the ultimate argument of people endorsing liberal gun ownership use the term "my freedom" as their primary reason. Can I ask:- - Why is one gun not enough? - For such a dangerous device, who's primary goal is to kill efficiently, the American's seem to have a very unhealthy love affair with it. Regularly you see individuals discussing the number of guns they own, and how "cool" they are etc etc. For a tool which is primarly aimed at simply protecting ones "freedom" it seems so be very "sexed up." Why? - A selfish freedom - To many other people around the world, when Americans declare its their right and their freedom to own a gun, we cannot help but consider it a somewhat selfish to be honest. It seems individuals put their own needs and rights first, and ignore what may infact be better for society. I liken it to speed limits. I'd love to be able to drive at any speed I like, but society deems a safe limit in towns as 30mph. I therefore forego this freedom for society as a whole. - Freedom? - There's now talk for example of arming all school teachers. Where is there freedom to go abuot their daily life/job not having the stress of carrying a gun? Now, I'm not suggesting the US should bad guns etc etc. I don't know what the answer is. BUT:- 1) There seems to be a very unhealthy love affair with guns in the US. I cannot fathom why a device which is killing tens of thousands of individuals every year is treated so frivolously and sexed up. 2) If we assume that allowing such numbers of guns, so freely, is at least some way to blame for the number of deaths, and I think we can safetly say that, then there would seem to be some acknowledgement of that. If the laws remain unchanged then that's absolutely fine, but the US populous needs to realise theres a cost involved. Just as we realise there's a cost involved with setting our speed limits to 30mph instead of 20mph. If we reduced them to 20mph, road related deaths would drop and lives would be saved, but we're willing to take absorb the risk of those deaths for the benefits we see (eg: jouney times etc).

[DjfunkmasterG]

It's fascinating the ultimate argument of people endorsing liberal gun ownership use the term "my freedom" as their primary reason. Can I ask:- - Why is one gun not enough? - For such a dangerous device, who's primary goal is to kill efficiently, the American's seem to have a very unhealthy love affair with it. Regularly you see individuals discussing the number of guns they own, and how "cool" they are etc etc. For a tool which is primarly aimed at simply protecting ones "freedom" it seems so be very "sexed up." Why? - A selfish freedom - To many other people around the world, when Americans declare its their right and their freedom to own a gun, we cannot help but consider it a somewhat selfish to be honest. It seems individuals put their own needs and rights first, and ignore what may infact be better for society. I liken it to speed limits. I'd love to be able to drive at any speed I like, but society deems a safe limit in towns as 30mph. I therefore forego this freedom for society as a whole. - Freedom? - There's now talk for example of arming all school teachers. Where is there freedom to go abuot their daily life/job not having the stress of carrying a gun? Now, I'm not suggesting the US should bad guns etc etc. I don't know what the answer is. BUT:- 1) There seems to be a very unhealthy love affair with guns in the US. I cannot fathom why a device which is killing tens of thousands of individuals every year is treated so frivolously and sexed up. 2) If we assume that allowing such numbers of guns, so freely, is at least some way to blame for the number of deaths, and I think we can safetly say that, then there would seem to be some acknowledgement of that. If the laws remain unchanged then that's absolutely fine, but the US populous needs to realise theres a cost involved. Just as we realise there's a cost involved with setting our speed limits to 30mph instead of 20mph. If we reduced them to 20mph, road related deaths would drop and lives would be saved, but we're willing to take absorb the risk of those deaths for the benefits we see (eg: jouney times etc). Well let's go with the theme of the forum, zombies, one gun wouldn't be enough during the zombie apocalypse, but some of these yahoos wanting an arsenal is just from plain stupidity. Gun Stores around here are jammed packed with people thinking OBAMA is going to take away all freedoms and some of these nutjobs want to be ready for his "Tyranny" and the gunshop owners freely sell them the guns with them spouting this shit off. Yesterday I was out and stopped by the local gunshop for a new cleaning kit (misplaced mine in the move) they had a police officer onsite, which pissed customers off, but I understood why he was there, and I had no personal issue with it myself. Some of the pro gun folks scare the shit out of me more than the ban gun folks, but neither side has it right in their arguments and trying to talk to either side is like talking to a wall 90% of the time. some folks GET it, others don't care. I am not worried my government will turn on me, it is my neighbor. (generally speaking) some folks have just gone right off the deep end over guns in general, and if they don't tone it down, then they will ban guns. I just see it happeneing because looking at the debate as a whole, some who DEMAND their gun rights truly don't deserve them, and the ones wanting all guns banned know jack shit about a gun.

[facestabber]

Like Babomb has said many try to use the 2nd ammendment incorrectly. The NRA doesn't help this whatsoever because they cloud the issue in political rhetoric. The severe rightwingers, and the gun debate worry me. It make me think this is how they bring up their children. Holy shit I almost fell out of my chair laughing at those pics. DJ, thats refreshing to see a self described left winger support the 2nd Amendment. I am very conservative but the gun debate worries me too. It is a very difficult topic to address and is often polarized by two political parties looking for points rather than rational discussion.

[Tricky]

This is also not an accurate concept. The reason people own assault weapons is for protection against a government that's out of control and has the same weaponry. Anyone who associates the 2nd ammendment with hunting/sport shooting/personal defense from criminals, does not understand why the 2nd ammendment was instituted. And this is the vast majority of people, from America as well as abroad. The fact that they are military style weapons is the exact reason why people should be allowed to own them. How can a person protect themselves and their country from those weapons without owning weapons that are equally as capable? That sounds insane to people outside of the US. Are you all really that paranoid about the government over there? And do citizens with assault rifles really believe that if the shit hit the fan they could go up against one of the largest and most capable armed forces in the world with their personal stash? How would you counter this? M1A1-Abrams-USMC-01.jpg Or this? AH-64-Apache-helicopter-110.preview.jpg If it was really about being able to beat the government in the field you'd all have an Abrams parked on the drive as well as a Javelin and Stinger launcher tucked away under the bed. For the record I have access to legally held shotguns, a hunting rifle and air rifles, but the thought of using them to march on Westminster because the government did something I don't like is frankly ridiculous

[DjfunkmasterG]

Holy shit I almost fell out of my chair laughing at those pics. DJ, thats refreshing to see a self described left winger support the 2nd Amendment. I am very conservative but the gun debate worries me too. It is a very difficult topic to address and is often polarized by two political parties looking for points rather than rational discussion. I only side with conservatives on two issues, guns, but not in the way they are riling it up today. The other is the DEATH PENALTY.

[Neil]

I am not worried my government will turn on me, it is my neighbor. (generally speaking) some folks have just gone right off the deep end over guns in general, and if they don't tone it down, then they will ban guns. I just see it happeneing because looking at the debate as a whole, some who DEMAND their gun rights truly don't deserve them, and the ones wanting all guns banned know jack shit about a gun. So can you imagine a line being walked in the US where the number of guns, and type of guns are reduced/limited? ie: Is there any need for Mr Joe Average to have an assault riffle, 2 shot guns and 6 hand guns? If he desires a gun for home protection, surely a basic hand gun with a six round magazine would serve that purpose?

[facestabber]

That sounds insane to people outside of the US. Are you all really that paranoid about the government over there? And do citizens with assault rifles really believe that if the shit hit the fan they could go up against one of the largest and most capable armed forces in the world with their personal stash? How would you counter this? M1A1-Abrams-USMC-01.jpg Or this? AH-64-Apache-helicopter-110.preview.jpg If it was really about being able to beat the government in the field you'd all have an Abrams parked on the drive as well as a Javelin and Stinger launcher tucked away under the bed. For the record I have access to legally held shotguns, a hunting rifle and air rifles, but the thought of using them to march on Westminster because the government did something I don't like is frankly ridiculous Before I answer let me go on record as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment but am really struggling with what the right answer is. I am not a NRA member. Part of me wants to see tighter gun restrictions but my job allows me to carry a gun and carry concealed off duty. So I struggle telling people who ask for the same right I was given that they cant defend themself. On the flip side I would hate arresting a drunk driver who(if became legal in Illinois) was carrying a concealed gun and decides he's not going to jail. Its really difficult for me to pick an absolute side. Now on to this issue sounding insane to US outsiders. Im sure it does but understand how and why America came to be. Without guns we werent running the British out and we are still a Colony. Our Founding Fathers realized that a gov't that becomes too powerful is dangerous and needs to be kept in check. And no Americans dont expect to fight our military head to head. Think gorilla tactics. Hit and run. We deployed snipers during the beginning of the revolutionary war and took out British Commanders. That was considered dirty fighting but it damaged our enemy. The key is to inflict damage with small cuts and eventually you weaken your enemies resolve. The North Vietnamese did this do us. They couldnt take us head on and they knew it. But with all that said there does need to be limits. Most(except the true gun nuts) would agree Americans should not have M60 machine gun nests on their property. Regarding marching on Westminster. Armed Americans arent marching locked and loaded at the steps of Congress either. Our gun belief is the last resort. Not offensive. But rather our last defense IF the gov't becomes tyranical. And lets face it an Armed America makes us very unattackable. A Japanese general once expressed this saying he would never invade America because behind every blade of grass would be an American with a gun. So this becomes an arguement of limits. And how do we set them. I am open to discussion.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Before I answer let me go on record as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment but am really struggling with what the right answer is. I am not a NRA member. Part of me wants to see tighter gun restrictions but my job allows me to carry a gun and carry concealed off duty. So I struggle telling people who ask for the same right I was given that they cant defend themself. On the flip side I would hate arresting a drunk driver who(if became legal in Illinois) was carrying a concealed gun and decides he's not going to jail. Its really difficult for me to pick an absolute side. Now on to this issue sounding insane to US outsiders. Im sure it does but understand how and why America came to be. Without guns we werent running the British out and we are still a Colony. Our Founding Fathers realized that a gov't that becomes too powerful is dangerous and needs to be kept in check. And no Americans dont expect to fight our military head to head. Think gorilla tactics. Hit and run. We deployed snipers during the beginning of the revolutionary war and took out British Commanders. That was considered dirty fighting but it damaged our enemy. The key is to inflict damage with small cuts and eventually you weaken your enemies resolve. The North Vietnamese did this do us. They couldnt take us head on and they knew it. But with all that said there does need to be limits. Most(except the true gun nuts) would agree Americans should not have M60 machine gun nests on their property. Regarding marching on Westminster. Armed Americans arent marching locked and loaded at the steps of Congress either. Our gun belief is the last resort. Not offensive. But rather our last defense IF the gov't becomes tyranical. And lets face it an Armed America makes us very unattackable. A Japanese general once expressed this saying he would never invade America because behind every blade of grass would be an American with a gun. So this becomes an arguement of limits. And how do we set them. I am open to discussion. Face, you hit the nail on the head. No country could ever come to America and wage a ground war, simply because we have Americans that are armed, like you and I. The government knows this, which is why the gun debate is a bitch for them to take on. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. Movies like Red Dawn are unrealistic, especially the remake. The minute anyone marched upon the land, it would be over before they could start a march. However, in lies the same issue. If the government stepped in to take away guns you would have the same scenario, and then you have the military arm of the government with most soldiers and leaders being pro 2nd ammendment. I think you would see soldiers go AWOl before taking on the citizens to remove guns from their posession. Does the average joe, working a 9-5 blue collar job need an M16, M4 or M60 weapon? NO! It serves no purpose to them other than to give them a bigger ego. I own a .45, a .40 and a 9mm. I have probably 300 rounds of ammo, mostly junk stuff for target practice. The last time I went target shooting was 3 weeks into relocating to PA from MD, that was 4 months ago. While I disgree with our country from time to time, other than maybe England, Canada or Italy, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. Also, if someone had the balls to try and invade us by ground, I would stand up for the country. Again, the gun debate is a fine line, and I honestly believe most folks who have guns don't deserve them, but they have a right to own it. If you wrap your head around it too much it will give you a migraine. Just saying. - - - Updated - - - So can you imagine a line being walked in the US where the number of guns, and type of guns are reduced/limited? ie: Is there any need for Mr Joe Average to have an assault riffle, 2 shot guns and 6 hand guns? If he desires a gun for home protection, surely a basic hand gun with a six round magazine would serve that purpose? Neil, I only pulled my gun on someone one time. Just once. it was summer of 2010, I was taking a nap in the afternoon, and heard something going on downstairs in my townhouse. I woke up, and grabbed my gun, found a guy going through my house. I aimed at him and told him to freeze and kneel down. He turned and ran out of the patio doors, and hopped the fence. I couldn't shoot him because the minute he turned to retreat, I cannot open fire on him. If he came at me, in MD I had everyright to shoot him, dead or wound him, my choice. The only reason I ever bought a gun was because when I was a DJ I was robbed at Gun point when finishing a gig in Philadelphia, PA in 1995. I gave up my equipment (it was insured) the CD collection and vinyl was still int he club. I lost my equipment, and $1200 in cash. I did as they asked, I let them take the stuff, they would have taken the car too, but the keys were still inside. As soon as I got done dealing with the cops, and drove back to Allentown, where I lived at the time, I went to bed woke up the next morning and went right to a friends gun store in scranton, pa. Bought my first weapon, a Ruger (P89) 9mm. The other guns, my .40 and .45 were just bought simply because I thought they were great looking and reliable weapons.

[Neil]

Neil, I only pulled my gun on someone one time. Just once. it was summer of 2010, I was taking a nap in the afternoon, and heard something going on downstairs in my townhouse. I woke up, and grabbed my gun, found a guy going through my house. I aimed at him and told him to freeze and kneel down. He turned and ran out of the patio doors, and hopped the fence. I couldn't shoot him because the minute he turned to retreat, I cannot open fire on him. If he came at me, in MD I had everyright to shoot him, dead or wound him, my choice. The only reason I ever bought a gun was because when I was a DJ I was robbed at Gun point when finishing a gig in Philadelphia, PA in 1995. I gave up my equipment (it was insured) the CD collection and vinyl was still int he club. I lost my equipment, and $1200 in cash. I did as they asked, I let them take the stuff, they would have taken the car too, but the keys were still inside. As soon as I got done dealing with the cops, and drove back to Allentown, where I lived at the time, I went to bed woke up the next morning and went right to a friends gun store in scranton, pa. Bought my first weapon, a Ruger (P89) 9mm. The other guns, my .40 and .45 were just bought simply because I thought they were great looking and reliable weapons. Sorry, maybe my questions wasn't clear. So it seems you have a gun purely for (home) defense. Which of course is fine. But would you say it's a fair comment there's an attitude to guns in the US which is not this pragmatic? ie: Which sexes up guns to the extent people buy and own weapons which far excede the requirement for (home) defense? Multiple hand guns, more power that required, shot guns, assault rifles etc etc. I'm simply wondering if a step to reigning in America's love affair with the gun - which to some of us appears slightly unhealthly - would be to try and return the ownership of guns back to it being a functional tool, rather than a fashion accessory? A single adequate gun, rather than multiple unecessarily powerful guns? Face, you hit the nail on the head. No country could ever come to America and wage a ground war, simply because we have Americans that are armed, like you and I. The government knows this, which is why the gun debate is a bitch for them to take on. Damned if you do, Damned if you don't. You know I'm fascinated this is used as a reason for owning guns. Can you really imagine a foreign power trying to invade the UK, yet alone the US with the size & power of its military? To suggest there's even the risk there bemuses me?!

[Staredge]

Why should I be limited in how many guns I own? I happen to enjoy shooting them. I use some of them for hunting. To be honest, mine aren't there for home defense so much, as all mine are small caliber. (I could use them that way if necessary though) If I'm a law abiding citizen, why does anyone care what I own? If I'm a criminal, why do I care how many I'm legally allowed to own? I can't figure out why people have such a hard time understanding that some people just like to shoot different types of guns. There are any number of shooting competitions out there. Cowboy Action, 3-Gun, Long Range rifle....the list goes on. As for dealing with a tyrannical government....as has been said before, ask the Vietnamese and the Afghanis how well it goes against a technologically superior force. Add in the fact that good chunks of the military would probably not go up against their neighbors. Is it a real concern of mine? Not really, but I can certainly see a greater possibility if we were disarmed.

[babomb]

That sounds insane to people outside of the US. Are you all really that paranoid about the government over there? And do citizens with assault rifles really believe that if the shit hit the fan they could go up against one of the largest and most capable armed forces in the world with their personal stash? How would you counter this? If it was really about being able to beat the government in the field you'd all have an Abrams parked on the drive as well as a Javelin and Stinger launcher tucked away under the bed. For the record I have access to legally held shotguns, a hunting rifle and air rifles, but the thought of using them to march on Westminster because the government did something I don't like is frankly ridiculous The government does things people don't like everyday. Nobody marches on washington with guns. It's not about simply doing things we don't like. It's when they take away our ability to determine our own fate and future, and become a threat to our way of life. It's because we realize that a foreign power couldn't come in and take us by force. They would infiltrate our systems, and try to defeat us from within. It's happening right now, and has been for a long time. I think the general sentiment among Americans that value liberty is that our rights and liberties are under attack. Not just the right to bear arms, all of our liberties. Our government seems to not really respect our rights, or our constitutional liberties anymore. And now they're coming after our right to bear arms. The last line of defense we have. Yeah, it's wrapped in a pretty package and attributed to "the greater good". But with this task force headed by VP Biden, it's not just the 2nd amendment that's being "re-examined", it's also the 1st amm. They want to legislate violence out of films and videogames. While less violence in the media would be a good thing for the most part, legislating it to be that way is not. It's censorship. America was never meant to be a nation where the government tells us how to live our lives. That's more power over the people than the government should ever be allowed to have. The US government no longer represents the people. That's the problem! That's what makes us paranoid, and that's why taking away firearms is such a big deal. Many of us don't believe that the reason for an assault weapons ban or firearm restrictions in general is actually an altruistic act. We believe it serves a political agenda. Why? Because our government has proven time and again that they don't really care about the people. So why would we now believe that firearm restrictions are for the good of the people? I think that if things weren't the way they are now, and people didn't feel that the government was so out of control and only interested in keeping and furthering their own power, the whole firearms issue would be much different. They've already thrown out the 4th amm, and the 5th amm. Now the 1st and the 2nd are on the menu. See a pattern here? It's not an issue of "the government wants to take away our toys"(well, maybe for some people it is). It's an issue of phasing out the US constitution and BOR. Which is what our entire nation has been based on since it's conception. That's the real problem. Yeah, the anti-gun crowd makes it seem like it's all about the guns, and people not wanting to give them up. And it is about that, for them. For me, and those who believe as I do, it's not that simple. They would never come right out and say "we're taking away your rights for our own agenda", they'll mask it as something for the common good to get people to surrender their rights. They'll trump it up in the media(GOV propaganda wing) to sway popular opinion in favor of their agenda. The problem is that our government insists on using covert control over the people. So we can never be sure what they're really doing and why they're doing it. They never tell us the truth, so our instinct is to be suspicious of them and their motives. That's not paranoia, that's just reality. I'm sure it does sound insane to others. Just imagine how insane it is to be living in that situation. - - - Updated - - - Sorry, maybe my questions wasn't clear. So it seems you have a gun purely for (home) defense. Which of course is fine. But would you say it's a fair comment there's an attitude to guns in the US which is not this pragmatic? ie: Which sexes up guns to the extent people buy and own weapons which far excede the requirement for (home) defense? Multiple hand guns, more power that required, shot guns, assault rifles etc etc. That's an issue of capitalism and marketing. That's how they sell products.

[facestabber]

Sorry, maybe my questions wasn't clear. So it seems you have a gun purely for (home) defense. Which of course is fine. But would you say it's a fair comment there's an attitude to guns in the US which is not this pragmatic? ie: Which sexes up guns to the extent people buy and own weapons which far excede the requirement for (home) defense? Multiple hand guns, more power that required, shot guns, assault rifles etc etc. I'm simply wondering if a step to reigning in America's love affair with the gun - which to some of us appears slightly unhealthly - would be to try and return the ownership of guns back to it being a functional tool, rather than a fashion accessory? A single adequate gun, rather than multiple unecessarily powerful guns? You know I'm fascinated this is used as a reason for owning guns. Can you really imagine a foreign power trying to invade the UK, yet alone the US with the size & power of its military? To suggest there's even the risk there bemuses me?! Neil backtrack to the 1980's. Did you not believe the Soviet Union to be a threat to Europe and the US? The Soviets build up was not defensive. And part of the reason it would be rediculous for a foreign invasion is because of private ownership. But it is a reason not THE reason or ever the sole reason Americans have guns. Im not sure how much more is needed to quantify when a Japanese general of a powerful, competant and fight to the death military, whom had the balls to attack and cripple our Pacific Fleet, spoke directly of private gun ownership by Americans. I will agree in the current state of the world not even the Chinese could pull off an invasion due to their undersized and underpowered Navy. They may have the Troop numbers but crossing the Pacific pond wont happen. But what will happen in the future? What superpower will emerge? We dont know but at some point America may not be the biggest kid on the block. If a Nation can actually match our Navy and Airforce and reach US soil do you understand how much havoc American's with guns will cause? So fearing N. Korea, China etc invading the US is not the primary motivating force for Americans buying guns, it does matter. And you are right about American's having a love affair with guns. The hard core gun toters scare me too. Since I work for the Gov't I have noticed certain old school gun store owners have given me some creepy stare's when I came in their store. And I dont doubt for a second that if guns were banned the hard core owners would shoot me dead if I showed up to remove their guns. But I dont judge the majority of responsible gun owners by the example of the minority of nut jobs

[Staredge]

As for arming teachers.... I'm all for it. No one is suggesting giving EVERY teacher a gun. I think that any teacher who wants to should be given the opportunity. They have to go through the concealed carry permit process and be approved for that. Multiple safety and defense courses. The police have to be involved, and there should be training involved with the entire school on how to handle a lockdown situation (which should happen anyway). I think THIS sounds logical and reasonable. I see this whole thing through multiple eyes. As a parent, as a teacher, as a husband of a teacher, as a friend of teachers. I'll die trying to defend my students.....I'd just like a chance to defend them.

[DjfunkmasterG]

Sorry, maybe my questions wasn't clear. So it seems you have a gun purely for (home) defense. Which of course is fine. But would you say it's a fair comment there's an attitude to guns in the US which is not this pragmatic? ie: Which sexes up guns to the extent people buy and own weapons which far excede the requirement for (home) defense? Multiple hand guns, more power that required, shot guns, assault rifles etc etc. I'm simply wondering if a step to reigning in America's love affair with the gun - which to some of us appears slightly unhealthly - would be to try and return the ownership of guns back to it being a functional tool, rather than a fashion accessory? A single adequate gun, rather than multiple unecessarily powerful guns? You know I'm fascinated this is used as a reason for owning guns. Can you really imagine a foreign power trying to invade the UK, yet alone the US with the size & power of its military? To suggest there's even the risk there bemuses me?! I haven't seen a gun commercial that sexes up gun ownership, nor any other ad material that makes it sexy to own guns. I don't subscribe to gun magazines, so I can't say with any certainty sexing up of guns takes place. I am not even referring to bikini clad women, or whatever arouses the mind to want to own the biggest most powerful gun you can get your hands on. Though, I used to joke with the clerks at one gun shop in MD that gun ownership is no different than car ownership. They joked I drove mustangs to add inches to my cock... my response was your wife doesn't complain. But I knew these guys so I could get away with it. However, I would flip the script on them as well when the owner would show off with his new AK-47, or whatever new firearm he was bragging about that week or particular day i stopped in. I guess I never really cared what makes people excited about the bigger better gun... nor can I cimplain, I mean i could, I see no reason anyone should own an M16 for home defense when a 9mm or 12 gauge would do the trick. All someone has to hear is the hammer clicking back or the shucking of a 12 gauge to know breaking into that house was a mistake of epic proportions. However, if I complain louder about it, that makes me a hypocrite, because one could say there is no reason for me to own a 420 HP muscle car, or to spend thousands more to make it faster. It could be the same thing that makes me want to own a mustang and make it faster that makes someone who loves guns make it more powerful, or own the most powerful model. I assume if Sigmund Fraud was still around he would concur they are both penile extension tools. Why should I be limited in how many guns I own? I happen to enjoy shooting them. I use some of them for hunting. To be honest, mine aren't there for home defense so much, as all mine are small caliber. (I could use them that way if necessary though) If I'm a law abiding citizen, why does anyone care what I own? If I'm a criminal, why do I care how many I'm legally allowed to own? I can't figure out why people have such a hard time understanding that some people just like to shoot different types of guns. There are any number of shooting competitions out there. Cowboy Action, 3-Gun, Long Range rifle....the list goes on. As for dealing with a tyrannical government....as has been said before, ask the Vietnamese and the Afghanis how well it goes against a technologically superior force. Add in the fact that good chunks of the military would probably not go up against their neighbors. Is it a real concern of mine? Not really, but I can certainly see a greater possibility if we were disarmed. I am not sure if we were disarmed that our men and women would go against us. i could be wrong, but if the US government thinks it could exert that kind of control over the military it would be seriously mistaken. You have a few NUTS who would probably obey the order, but the vast majority of enlisted men and women I think would stand on the side of the citizens. I don't think anyone should be limited in the ownership of firearms to the number of guns you own... I guess I am just trying to see the benefit, like some others, of why someone needs to own an AK-47, other than to say... "Dude, come check out my AK-47. It's fucking bad ass man. I can drop this bitch in mud, pick it up and still tear someone a new ass. It's fucking awesome man." G

[babomb]

As for arming teachers.... I'm all for it. No one is suggesting giving EVERY teacher a gun. I think that any teacher who wants to should be given the opportunity. They have to go through the concealed carry permit process and be approved for that. Multiple safety and defense courses. The police have to be involved, and there should be training involved with the entire school on how to handle a lockdown situation (which should happen anyway). I think THIS sounds logical and reasonable. I see this whole thing through multiple eyes. As a parent, as a teacher, as a husband of a teacher, as a friend of teachers. I'll die trying to defend my students.....I'd just like a chance to defend them. That's exactly the type of thing I've been thinking about. Since of course you can't arm every teacher, there should be security officers in place. Israel uses armed teachers. And I've never heard of an incident where it has created an "OK Corral" situation where bullets are flying everywhere indiscriminately. That fear is trumped up by people who just see guns as being these scary death machines. People who's exposure to guns is based only on what they see on TV. These are the people who see getting rid of guns entirely as the 1 and only solution to the problem, and they don't even want to hear any other possible solutions. If you don't agree with them then your opinion doesn't matter and you're part of the problem. They're scared, sheepish and over-emotional. Which makes them easily manipulated into surrendering not only their own rights, but the rights of everyone else. - - - Updated - - - I'm simply wondering if a step to reigning in America's love affair with the gun - which to some of us appears slightly unhealthly - would be to try and return the ownership of guns back to it being a functional tool, rather than a fashion accessory? A single adequate gun, rather than multiple unnecessarily powerful guns? What's an adequate gun? In terms of home defense, a shot from from a pistol round to the head or heart will make someone just as dead as a shot from a rifle or shotgun. What does "unnecessarily powerful" mean? We aren't talking about grenade launchers or anything like that. A firearm is only as powerful as the round it shoots. So a .223 round from an assault rifle does the same damage as a .223 from a hunting rifle. The only difference is the way the rifle looks, and the way it looks has no bearing on its power. Assault rifles only look menacing because they're associated with war. And then some assault rifles look more menacing than other assault rifles. But looks are deceiving there. Same with shotguns. Sawed off(short barrel) shotguns look more menacing than full length shotguns. Pistols too. Semi auto pistols look more menacing than revolvers. But they really aren't. This is one of the troubling aspects of this whole thing. People think there should be restrictions on certain firearms, but they don't know anything about the firearms they want to restrict. You know I'm fascinated this is used as a reason for owning guns. Can you really imagine a foreign power trying to invade the UK, yet alone the US with the size & power of its military? To suggest there's even the risk there bemuses me?! We have a large and powerful military right now. But that could be a different story 10 years down the road. It would also be a different story if we were involved in different wars abroad, if our military were spread too thin and national guard troops were even activated and sent somewhere in the middle east. Alot can happen in todays unstable world. In all reality, if there were to be an invasion of the US/UK it wouldn't be from a single foreign power. It would be a coalition of multiple nations. And you can't deny that America is hated by many nations. This isn't to say that I think this is gonna happen anytime soon, or at all for that matter. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's impossible, or that the notion itself is bemusing. I think it's more likely that a foreign power or coalition would assimilate themselves into our society for the purpose of subversion. Just look at the current state of affairs in the US right now. Obama is reducing Americas nuclear arsenal, while other nations that are nuclear capable are not, and some are working toward becoming nuclear capable. Obama is degrading our economy further and further. Which weakens us and our military. He's also strengthening Arab resolve against us with his drone strikes. He's subverting our relationship with nations that are allies such as the UK. There's a whole lot of people in the US that believe Obama is trying to reduce our influence across the world, and weakening the economy on purpose in an effort to make it difficult for us to regain that influence. I'm not saying that's definitely happening, but there's a good case to be made in favor of that theory. And on top of everything else that's going on, now Obama wants to restrict firearms. Effectively weakening the peoples ability to defend themselves. So when you add all this up, do you seriously not see a pattern emerging? I'm seriously wondering. Because I keep hearing you guys say that our reasons for owning firearms are invalid. So do you really think we're all imagining all of this stuff? That it's business as usual over here, and that we really have no realistic cause for concern? Do you honestly think that our concerns about our liberties being stripped away all boils down to just paranoia?