thirty-ought-six
member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 185
America is most deeply rooted into the right to keep and bear arms with a stronger passion than any other nation on earth.
Gun control is not, nor cannot be the actual taking of firearms, which has happened numerous times in history, as such with Germany banning firearm ownership in 1919.
As with a nation such deeply rooted in gun ownership, such a despicable act on a national level would cause a mass amount of outcry, and could plunge is into civil war within hours.
Gun control is merely the control of certain aspects of the firearms themselves, such as limitations on the sizes of magazines, suppressors, and other accessories, the size of the caliber, etc.
When you slowly eat away at these tiny, individual freedoms, it does not raise as much concern. A person would notice a tsunami much easier than a tide rolling in.
When people go as far as to dissect the meaning of the 2nd amendment, and impose certain regulations pertaining to firearms, one most question the ulterior motive of their actions.
When a lunatic with clear mental issues goes out and shoots up a school or a movie theater, people have the audacity to think that their actions represents the actions of a normal, intelligent gun owner, and even our own government acts accordingly by limiting the amount of ammunition one can have stored inside a gun.
Gun ownership is more than hunting, or self defence, gun ownership is protecting oneself against the potential turning of one's government against their own citizens.
One only needs to open a history book to find several instances of where a government has turned against it's own citizens, and even find that in the past, even the US Government has done so as well (although not as readily admitting).
Of course, the government of the United States possess much more superior weaponry than the common man.
However, when politicians want us to have much less advanced weapons, it raises further questions as well.
While the probability of the Government turning on us is low, there is NOTHING that dictates that it could happen in the future.
When it does happen, the likelihood of us winning such a war with single action, break open, bolt action, single fire weapons is a rather small chance.
Thus one should agree that when politicians think that "one bad apple spoils the bunch", in terms of what should be done to limit the usefulness of a firearm, one should think what that politician is doing in office in the first place.
Gun control is not, nor cannot be the actual taking of firearms, which has happened numerous times in history, as such with Germany banning firearm ownership in 1919.
As with a nation such deeply rooted in gun ownership, such a despicable act on a national level would cause a mass amount of outcry, and could plunge is into civil war within hours.
Gun control is merely the control of certain aspects of the firearms themselves, such as limitations on the sizes of magazines, suppressors, and other accessories, the size of the caliber, etc.
When you slowly eat away at these tiny, individual freedoms, it does not raise as much concern. A person would notice a tsunami much easier than a tide rolling in.
When people go as far as to dissect the meaning of the 2nd amendment, and impose certain regulations pertaining to firearms, one most question the ulterior motive of their actions.
When a lunatic with clear mental issues goes out and shoots up a school or a movie theater, people have the audacity to think that their actions represents the actions of a normal, intelligent gun owner, and even our own government acts accordingly by limiting the amount of ammunition one can have stored inside a gun.
Gun ownership is more than hunting, or self defence, gun ownership is protecting oneself against the potential turning of one's government against their own citizens.
One only needs to open a history book to find several instances of where a government has turned against it's own citizens, and even find that in the past, even the US Government has done so as well (although not as readily admitting).
Of course, the government of the United States possess much more superior weaponry than the common man.
However, when politicians want us to have much less advanced weapons, it raises further questions as well.
While the probability of the Government turning on us is low, there is NOTHING that dictates that it could happen in the future.
When it does happen, the likelihood of us winning such a war with single action, break open, bolt action, single fire weapons is a rather small chance.
Thus one should agree that when politicians think that "one bad apple spoils the bunch", in terms of what should be done to limit the usefulness of a firearm, one should think what that politician is doing in office in the first place.
