"If you evacuated you couldn't take them" doesn't make sense to me. For the typical home defense gun owner I think having a handgun (or two) would be one of the first things in their go bag (or holstered on the hip).

Threat from chaos or natural disaster ain't doing it for me either.

My dad shot and killed himself when I was 12, my cousin was shot and killed by a mentally ill co-worker, and one of my friends cleaned student's brains off the wall in the wake of the Roseburg shooting.

This poll says we've got at least 37 members @ FOFC who have friends or family killed by a firearm. We've got people who have lost friends and family in the VTech shootings and the Roseburg shootings, and we even have a member currently accused of murder.

Comparatively, how much do you think we collectively have suffered from home invasion, government tyranny, governmental collapse or looters? Nefarious government agents would have to literally execute two members of my family and force my friend to clean up the brains before they're even on even footing with the damage that unfettered gun access has done to my personal life.

How much REAL damage to your friends & neighbors would it take to make y'all consider moving your stance on a hypothetical threat to yourself even a fucking fraction of an inch?

Any gun legislature of consequence is going to necessitate 'good' gun owners giving up their guns (or at least their right to buy more guns) and sacrificing their perceived safety for the benefit of someone else..the change would probably take a generation and the idea that criminals would initially keep their guns is probably true, and you would be voluntarily leaving yourself less protected, but to those of us who have already literally sacrificed lives of our family and friends for your second amendment rights have very little sympathy for your sense of security.

They would be fighting for their own lives. When governments are overthrown, the leaders typically end up strung up from a bridge, not sent home to open a library.

What do you think the response would be if some armed people tried to take over the government today? I guarantee you they'd be met with lethal force at all cost.

Yeah brother.

This discussion will end up like all the others where no opinion is changed. But I do want to understand other people's opinions (vs just questions) before starting the debate.

I'm also not in the "all guns must be banned" camp either. I'm fine with handgun ownership. I do think you need to have a clean record and I do think you should lose that gun if you commit a crime with it. I also think there should be severe punishment for carrying an illegal weapon (like if you're a violent felon in possession, you should be put away for a long time). Heck, that alone would knock half the gang crime in major cities.

As for the higher powered weaponry, I think it should be tightly regulated. You should need a reason for it. And loopholes like bump stocks should be banned for what they are.

I like the idea of a "restraining order" of sorts on gun ownership. If you're caught making threats or something, the city/state/federal government can petition the court to keep you from buying/owning a gun for a period of time. Looking at the history of many of these mass shooters, it seems this would have made it much more difficult to carry out.

Yep. I mean Syria has been in a few wars in the last 100 years, but only in this current uprising has the government used poison gas, in violation of the Geneva Convention. One can argue it's because Bashar is worse than his father and previous Syrian rulers, but I can't be the only one who remembers Bashar being lauded as a potential reformer when he took the reigns?

I meant to a shelter. If you evacuate to a hotel or private home, sure, you would bring your gun(s). But who in those hotels or private residences out of the flood zone need to use guns to protect themselves or their property?

I'm not sure how saying that statistically very few gun owners ever need to use their gun for protection of themselves, their family or their property is something to believe or not believe.

I dont ever foresee an armed militia made up of US citizens storming the White House, The Pentagon or Fort Knox. I agree that is mostly fantasy novel talk.

My concern is more one of when a foreign enemy lands a significant strike on US soil and government panics. Im thinking more chaos theory than an armed coop.

I have no interest in armed offense, I have a high interest in armed defense.


Wait, WHAT?


I understand I will never change your opinion, and you will never change mine. Its unfortunate. We are so diametrically opposed there isnt common ground. I find your position in this paragraph to be un-American and borderline treasonous. That's isnt radical hyperbole used for effect, that is my honest feelings.


I'm largely in agreement here.
Commit a gun crime lose right to own a gun. Im good with it. Commit a crime with a gun go to jail. Possess a gun when you arent allowed to, go to jail. Etc. 100%

I disagree only on the bolded. I think if you arent classified as not allowed to carry, I.E you havent committed a crime, arent under mental health etc.

Your reason should simply be, because I want it.

I dont believe in everything is illegal unless the government grants you access, I believe everything is legal unless you lose your rights.

True, and we'd really be in trouble now without Patrick Swayze

If that's un-American and borderline treasonous then sign me up for both!

And I agree with what was mentioned higher up, the younger generation coming is going to make those of us on left look like reactionaries on this issue. I am already amazed how younger folk have made society do a complete 180 on smoking and gay rights in such a short period of time. If we're un-American and borderline treasonous, I'm going to be interested in what is thought of these upcoming generations (I have definitely heard un-Christian and even Satanic in response to LGBTQ accepting young Evangelicals).

It just seems to go against so much of what our country does.

I can't sell booze out of the back of my car. I need a liquor license. I can't prescribe drugs or perform surgery on someone without proper licensing. I can't be a lawyer, manage money, or drive a big truck around without a proper license. Same goes for a motorcycle.

Like I understand people who want a more Laissez-faire approach. Just be consistent with it. If the reason is "because I want it", then that should be your mindset if I want to drive a big rig around town for fun or buy massive amounts of Vicodin for when I'm sore after a workout.

All I'm asking is some consistency in views.

And how far does that go? Can 10 year olds get tank because they want it (and, of course someone buys it for them)? What about cocaine for that same 10 year old? What if that 10 year old is your son/daughter?

*shrug* at one point arguing against slavery, segregation or keeping women from voting would've all been un-American and borderline treasonous.

I can totally understand how what you've relayed of a history filled with violence has made self-preservation your number one priority, and you see a gun as the only thing keeping you from possibly losing more family & friends, but I think you're far outnumbered by people who have lost their friends & family to indefensible firearm violence, both on this forum and in this country, and what you consider treason and un-American thinking just sounds like putting your need for hypothetical security above everybody else's real losses of life, from my perspective.

It is pretty sacrilegious that you are making fun of Swayze and one of the greatest movies of all time (remake sucked).

First,

Then,

The NRA was faster than a speeding bullet with this lawsuit.

Don't disagree that they won't need them, I disagree that they won't/can't take them, even to shelters. They setting up metal detectors or patting people down before they let them in? The culture in New Orleans and most of the South/West is just so much different from the Northeast on this point, but yeah, people who think they need a handgun for self defense will try their hardest to keep one on them in these chaotic situations when wild rumors are flying around.
Maybe chemical attacks are a new thing, but they haven't exactly been playing by the Geneva Convention 1982 Hama massacre - Wikipedia

I think a lot of this discussion has really gone off into irrelevant tangents. A few points that I think are useful and representative:


This. It would be about resistance, not a 'conventional war'.


Huh? There's all kinds of examples of that kind of calamity. Are you arguing that there are no dictators in the world? Seriously??


Why does this kind of thing even matter? Lots of people advocate lots of things for various reasons and they often don't say what the 'real' or most important ones are. I'm a lot less concerned with the why they really want it stuff versus the actual purposes of the amendment and how it should be changed, if at all.


Whether they will or not(I agree they won't) is a separate question than whether or not they should have the right to.



This right here is the scariest part. Far worse than anything else being discussed in this thread. The fact that it's no longer even a big deal to change the way the Constitution is understood in significant ways without actually, you know, changing the Constitution.


** it's not hypothetical
** if gun violence reduction is the goal, the focus on so-called 'assault weapons' is misplaced since most gun homicides in America don't result in those. Similarly, the level of attention given to mass shootings is greatly disproportionate to the number of deaths involved.
** I'm very willing to have my tax dollars go to having multiple armed guards at all schools at all times when children are there. I think that's likely to be a lot more effective.
** I'm also open to the idea of debating revisions in the 2nd Amendment.
** I'm not open to to just deciding to ignore the 2nd Amendment because we don't like it anymore or think it's archaic. There's a process for that, and not following it has had and will continue to have far worse consequences for our nation.

No, I'm suggesting that the distinctions between a dictatorship and the United States (or any other first world nation) is an INCREDIBLY EASY one to make, and that if you think collective gun ownership is what's holding that line in place then you're delusional. I'm sorry, but those of you that immediately wander off theorizing about Vietnam's guerilla fighting techniques at the mention of the 2nd amendment are fucking loony. To hear that fever dream referenced repeatedly by several different respectable folks, in all seriousness, during this particular conversation, and to read that you're all apparently holding some very specific apocalyptic fantasies has only served to crush any confidence I had in any American gun owners.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"
-Antonin Scalia

I've never owned a gun. Does that change things at all? Gun ownership is only one factor in the dictatorship issue at all, but it's also clearly one targeted by dictators in the past. Therefore it is a factor which contributes to adding a cost to oppression.


Absolutely true. There are many types of restrictions permissible, indeed many currently on the books. Simultaneously, there are also types of restrictions which would indeed violate said right.

Sure, but considering that no first world countries with strict gun control have had any issues with dictatorial uprisings in modern history don't you think it's also a factor that can be obviously and immediately dismissed? I also think it's worth pointing out that in very recent history the gun ownership ratio is so skewed along political lines in America that effectively one political side of America is armed and the other is not...how does that figure into the threat on democracy? Tyranny seems just as likely to spring out of that environment than be held back by it, to my eyes.

There was a record number of murders in St. Louis last year. Most by hand guns. So after we ban AR-15 type guns, do we go after hand guns next? And how do we enforce the ban? Is the government going house to house and searching every citizen for the banned guns?

All this talk is great. But how is it going to work? Is it long game? We ban them now and in 30 years they will be gone after more mass shootings allow the government to find them all?

How do you enforce a ban of guns? How is the ban on ownership of guns for felons working?

It's a pretty tired response, so I apologize if you've heard it, but Australia is the most successful model of gun control that most folks point to:

Gun Control: How Australia Stopped Mass Shootings | Fortune
The arguments that carried Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms

It seems like they succeeded mostly with a generous buyback program. They didn't take anybody's guns by force, so much as allow folks to give them away and get rewarded for it, which apparently was a crucial difference. Who knows how/if it would apply to America(ns).

Do you not think that this even being a consideration in any nation, let alone one that is otherwise considered one of the leading nations in the world, is indicative that there might just be a problem, and something needs to change?

I don’t see children needing armed guards in order to go to school in any other developed country.

Well in 2012 over 5000 people were convicted and put in jail for possessing a firearm while being a felon.

Needing armed guards at schools is an absolute fucking tragedy for a society.

A friend-of-a-friend's kid came home crying the other day after an "active shooter drill" in her grade school because she left too much of her arm exposed and she was afraid she had given away her position to the hypothetical shooter and all of her friends were going to be killed because of her mistake. I'm sure that's a cherished grade school memory for us all.

And look at it this way - the NRA and Republicans certainly don't seem to worry about losing power to people with guns, as they are adamantly opposed to restricting their sale.

What they DO apparently fear, and what they DO try to restrict, are votes.

More armed guards in schools? Like the guy who was probably snapchatting while the FLA school was getting shot up?

Yup. And although many gun owners will tell you that they think gun ownership keeps government over-reach in check, I think it could just as easily be argued that the polarity of the issue leads to whole swaths of folks who vote strictly GOP particularly because of their stance on firearms, which only serves to enable corruption within the party, and makes the base all the more likely to accept acts/legislation against their other rights & self-interests from similarly aligned politicians, as long as they think those people will ultimately protect their gun rights.

To some degree American gun owners have become willing to accept government over-reach, so long as it serves to protect their guns, which they intend to use in case of government over-reach.

Yeah, we need to have bounties on people who are shooting up the schools. This will encourage people to confront the shooter instead of just deciding to retire with a fat pension.

This is the same old "if you can't eliminate it 100%, why bother" nonsense that gets floated eventually every time in this debate. Do Police catch everybody running a red light or going over the speed limit ? Or driving drunk ?

In the end it shouldn't even be about a total ban or anything, that isn't even the point nor would it work (see: Prohibition). The point is reducing it to a degree where it will make a difference in the long run.

But it is a government's job to make sure there is a balance between "personal freedom" and "safety for everybody". This includes not allowing people to drive drunk (no matter how super-good they still think they can do it and no matter how inconvenient this is), not allowing people to set open fires wherever they want them, a million other things and quite frankly should include regulating the distribution and use of deadly weapons. When i then see an organization suing a regional government for setting the minimum age for the purchase of a military-grade piece of weaponry at the same number as the legal drinking limit, i gotta ask: What in the hell is wrong over there ?

Right now the US has a unique mentality towards Guns being every-day items for pretty much everybody rather than dangerous objects that ultimately shouldn't be pretty much distributed the same way you do household wares. I mean, why the actual fuck are they being sold at Walmart being displayed next to fishing rods and footballs, rather than at specialty-stores only ?

Most European countries (and Germany especially) for example actually do have quite a lot of guns, hunting is still popular in many parts (as is sports shooting). But there are strict rules on how to sell them, get them and keep them as well as strict limitations to stuff like magazine size, also rules like only being allowed to transport them in the cargo hold unloaded. All these things make sure everybody is aware that Guns are not in fact the same as, say a kitchen knife. You don't have kids seeing guns on a regular basis growing up with a mindset they are normal. Neither do you have 19 year olds being able to just go up and buy a handgun, much less sth the military uses, on a whim because he feels like it.

Do you live in Caracas?

Nope in SC.

I don't drive in a demolition derby either, but I wear a seat belt and have car insurance.

I think it's the responsibility of husbands and fathers to protect their family. I belive in self accountability and personal responsibility. I take responsibility for my family's and my safety. I don't rely on others (police) or depend on them.

In everything I've ever set my mind to I've succeeded, and my mind is set on protecting mine. I don't do half ass.

This is the second time in this thread you've tried to co-opt gun ownership as some sort of sign of something else, or lack of a gun as a veiled insult. The first was equating gun ownership to patriotism--insinuating that if you don't carry, you're not a real patriot. Now it's even worse, with an insinuation that if you don't carry, you're not a real man.

Stop.

I read an piece from a historian who put the 2A into historical context. A standing national army was not a thing, and what was there, wasn't strong enough to defend the entire newly founded country of the USA. Therefore there was a need for a strong reliance on localized militias who could be formed up on notice and provide a mechanism for the defense of the country.

The framers reference the tyranny of government, mostly in reference to the former status of the US and it's relationship as a colony of England. The entire survival of the US depended on it remaining free on it's own, and defensible from foreign invaders. The need for citizens to maintain weapons was for the defense of the country and the preservation of it's status as an independent and free country.

At no time did the framers ever intend that the people should keep massive stockpiles of weapons, so they could use them against their own government. In this correct context, guns for self protection are understandable and expected, but unlimited unregulated guns or ammo are not. Arming citizens for the purpose of forming a well regulated militia is the standard. Underneath that, there are long, long lists of acceptable regulations that will not limit self protection or violate the 2nd Amendment.

Referencing the break down of society comments in the thread: I watched LA 92 on netflix last night. Which you guys should watch. It is fantastic. But very brutal. Very well done. A must see. In it the rioters went after Koreatown. Their was some big time animosity between the blacks and koreans. Remember the korean shop owner shot and killed a 15 year old black girl right after the Rodney king episode. The korean shop owners took up arms to protect their shops, because the police wouldnt. They showed a gun battle on the streets. It was intense.
Just an example of what was being said about the break down of society.

Anyway. Watch it. It references the Watts riots on 1965. I know this is a little off topic now. But it mirrored 65. It was incredible.

I certainly have no interest in questioning your success and self-worth. That said, this flavor of posturing only serves to make you sound very,very scared, which seems to be the opposite of the pose you were trying to present.

FWIW, I absolutely agree with CU Tiger in first paragraph and certainly don't view him as scared.

He is north of me as far as "worse case" (e.g mine is Katrina-like) but to trust police to be there all the time is strange to me. Just different backgrounds and where you live in the country I guess.

That's certainly a fair point. I live in a very northern city, which probably makes it hard to compare to anybody in a rural environment.

That said, I feel like the police thing is a bit of a red herring. I don't trust the police to protect me from any kind of immediate threat to my body or property either...if my home gets invaded or robbed I'm certainly not getting any real-time protection from the police, I just have someone to report it to. I absolutely rely on the police for catastrophe protection, but I still stand by the opinion that living your life in constant preparation for the impending apocalypse hardly sounds like the standard for the American Dream.

Thank you.

Are random violent home invasions a big thing in the US? I know that bars on the windows and security screen doors are not going to make your home 100% break-in proof, but if it's random surely it's at least moving them to the next house along rather than scaling onto your roof to start lifting up roof tiles...

On the contrary, it's not even unusual for first-world countries to have governments usurp power. It simply takes a different form than it has in the past, and so long as the economy isn't in the tank people are generally far too greedy to oppose it. That is of course an entirely different issue, but this idea of governmental tyranny being a thing of the past just ain't so.


This is literally one of the most exceptionally weak arguments I have ever read, for anything. One group of people exercising their rights more than another chooses to doesn't carry with it any threat of tyranny. That's like saying people who don't vote are being disenfranchised; no, they just chose not to vote.


Of course. But exactly what the problem is, is another matter. America has always had lots of guns without this type of thing being prevalent. Ergo, guns aren't the problem. Similarly, our approach to mental health is still inadequate but not nearly as inadequate as it was in the past when you didn't see randomish mass shootings of this regularity. So something else has changed. Cultural factors require cultural solutions.


I didn't read it that way at all. Certainly 100% can never be the goal. But there's opposing any non-perfect solution on the one hand, and on the other there is not being in favor of doing 'just anything' just to do something regardless of how likely it is to make a real difference. Which leads back to the point that if you want to reduce gun violence by eliminating weapons, you need to ban them all since handguns are most often used to kill people.


I don't carry water for the NRA but this is just basic logic. Why should adults aged 18-21 not have the same rights as other adults? At 18 you can vote and go to war for your country, but you can't buy a gun(or drink)? Makes a lot more sense to have a single point at which a person comes of age, at which point you should be able to do all of those things.


I'd refer this historian to the history of what the founders actually wrote. Namely, that the miltia was considered to be the entirety of the people(you literally can't find a contemporary with any other definition of the term), the concept of governmental regulation as we know it today was not even a thing and would not be for quite some time('organized' is a better sense of what they referred to). And then there are the statements like this one from the Federalist Papers:


Note that he does not here envision the citizenry as a replacemente for the army, but rather a counterbalance to it in defense of the people's liberties.


I'd describe what you refer to here as merely taking prudent precautions and not assuming the future will be rosy. A wise man sees danger and seeks refuge, and all that. It's only necessary to live extremely little of one's life preparing for such things to do what has been described.

It is interesting how we are different here.

I do agree with you on the immediate threats, real-time etc. where its just not possible for real-time police assistance.

However, for catastrophe protection, I would never assume the police would be able to help (in a timely manner) as they would be overwhelmed during the initial stages.

No, it's incredibly rare.

Also the majority of violent home invasions are committed by people the victim knows already.

You can narrow it down even further based on the type of residence as mobile homes are much more likely to see this kind of crime (even if it is minuscule). The older you get and the more family members you have also decrease your risk. Neighborhood also plays a role.

Everyone can decide the level of risk they are willing to take. But if I was concerned about being killed in a random home invasion, I'd be living a life where I didn't drive a car, climb on my roof to stuff, or leave the house during flu season. All much more likely to kill me. Cowering in fear just doesn't seem like an enjoyable way to live life.

For the most part, no. There are obviously some bad places in cities but in general, violent home invasions for law-abiding citizens are not a big thing IMO.

I live in suburbia about 20 miles from Atlanta and feel pretty safe. There are robberies of course, and there are incidents of violent home invasions but its generally because of drugs and other criminal activities between the parties.

You're absolutely right. That is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard. Thank God that you're the only one making it.

You can try and muddle the terms all you want, but if you're going to look at me with a straight face and tell me a single group of politcally minded people being armed not only doesn't carry any threat, but the suggestion is one of the weakest arguments you have ever read? For anything? I honestly don't know how you can expect anything but a befuddled stare in response to this.

Just to be clear, and in effort to prevent any further word twisting: do I personally consider collective GOP gun owners a tyrannical threat? No, but I certainly consider them more of a threat to the political progress/process than I do as a revolutionary force protecting me from government over-reach, which is where that hypothetical argument stemmed from, so please don't try to suggest that I'm being hysterical or that I believe that gun owners are on the verge of armed revolt.

That's just it. I don't cower in fear. Ever.
I also don't revel in ignorance.
I wear a seatbelt despite it being over 20 years since I've been in an accident as well.
A better comparison, I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen, my garage, my shop, and on my deck by my grill. I've never had a home fire, but I check my extinguishers and replace them when they expire. I don't fear fire, I prepare to combat it if necessary...and then enjoy my life.

I want to respond to earlier comments as well and will tomorrow, but this one just jumped out to me.