So, why are guns necessary?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wait, since I've re-organized it, please re-read and address inconsistent points.

Doesn't circular logic look something like this - "Whatever is less dense than water will float, because whatever is less dense than water will float". If you are saying that my post is illogical you may have a point, but I'm pretty sure that I wasnt attempting to prove that Lemur was correct by agreeing with him, which was my starting suggestion.

[Montmorency]

Let's put some language into that schema, then.

1. No depriving privileges or liberties without due process of law > women and their physicians have at least some right to private/personal medical decisions involving abortion

2. Well-regulated militia > state-organized paramilitaries

3. Private citizens have at least some right to own firearms

Perhaps you've been trying to fit (3) into the wrong place?

[ICantSpellDawg]

IMy point was that it is hard for some people to find a right of the people to keep and bear arms, but have no problem finding a right to most other stuff which isn't spelled out in the text.

Read it this way if you'd like:

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

But you have to know that we are all members of the militia and that the implication that the national guards and the like are not what the founders meant by "the militia". They meant - the people have guns and we call them up in emergencies to act as a security force. Also, this supports ownership of weapons which have a State Security role to play - AR-15's absolutely have a role in that, so do bombs and full-auto weapons.

You should attempt to change wording if you disagree with it. If you think it would be better if the wording read "the right of the government to have a fighting force" you should push for it to change. I like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

[Montmorency]

The 2nd Amendment says that a militia is necessary to protect a free State, so in order to be able to have a militia, the citizens have a natural right to keep and bear arms and the government cannot infringe on that right.

The thing is, we are no longer in the days when pretty much every adult male was or could be militia, and might have been called to defend their localities from criminals, bandits, and Injuns.

A better understanding is that there is no special (i.e. "spelled out") right to private gun ownership for its own sake, but that it follows modestly from the 14th Amendment. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment has more relevance to, say, police forces than to Joe Blow.

A good application of the 2nd would be to require every prospective gun owner to take extensive safety/training courses?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The thing is, we are no longer in the days when pretty much every adult male was or could be militia, and might have been called to defend their localities from criminals, bandits, and Injuns.

A better understanding is that there is no special (i.e. "spelled out") right to private gun ownership for its own sake, but that it follows modestly from the 14th Amendment. Perhaps the 2nd Amendment has more relevance to, say, police forces than to Joe Blow.

A good application of the 2nd would be to require every prospective gun owner to take extensive safety/training courses?

Well, tell that to the Heller decision. And the McDonald decision. And the appellate decisions citing and building the foundation of those decisions. Listen, I would gladly give up my right to keep and bear arms and the Supreme judicial decisions which officially incorporated those decisions to the States if you guys give up the false foundation of Roe v Wade and the fruit of that poisonous tree which has considerably less textual legitimacy, knowing what we know about progressive developments in fetal viability. No guns for no abortions - even trade and I'm good for it.

Also, if times and people's interest in their basic rights have changed, argue that with people and repeal the 2nd amendment. If the government could just say "this right is no longer protected because we don't feel it should be protected any longer", what was the point of the enumerated amendment process or the Bill in the first place?

[Montmorency]

this right is no longer protected

You seem to persist in interpreting the 2nd Amendment as granting an individual right to "arms", period. It does so only in the context of state-regulated and sanctioned contexts, is the point that has been made several times now.

Again, there is an individual right to bear arms for one's own purposes; however, it extends not from the 2nd, but rather the 14th, Amendment.

It's as simple as that.

considerably less textual legitimacy

To put it another way: "guns for every1" has as much textual legitimacy as abortion.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No - I can point out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", Which you suggest doesn't protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms from being infringed. Can you point out "the right of the people to abort their unborn children shall not be infringed" or anything mentioning anything close?

When I say "text" I mean "written language". There is no such written language in the amendments protecting the health decisions of an individual at the expense of the life of another. There is, however, written language stating that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To suggest that your preferred right exists, you must go beyond the text, into the "apocrypha" of common law in order to determine whether this is an un-enumerated right of the people. If you venture forth regarding the right of the people to keep and bear arms, you find the final State law denying it crumbling and the city of Chicago forced to eat muzzle.

You seem to misunderstand what I mean when I say "textual legitimacy" to suggest that the 2 rights are textually equivalent.

[rvg]

Except "those clowns" were not trying to take anyone's guns away. The law they voted for only limited the size of magazines and implemented background checks for gun sales. The only people in the country that are "harmed" by this law is gun manufacturers and retailers, as they would lose a little bit of business by no longer being able to sell to criminals or mental cases...

Like I said... Don't mess with our guns.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Like I said... Don't mess with our guns.

The same people who are saying "nobody is coming for your guns" will shortly thereafter say "which you have no protected right to keep or bear, BTW".

[rvg]

The same people who are saying "nobody is coming for your guns" will shortly thereafter say "which you have no protected right to keep or bear, BTW".

Yep, it's a slippery slope. they won't hesitate one bit to castrate the 2nd Amendment if the opportunity presents itself. Thus, I give them nothing as a matter of principle.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yep, it's a slippery slope. they won't hesitate one bit to castrate the 2nd Amendment if the opportunity presents itself. Thus, I give them nothing as a matter of principle.

Every movement towards more government oversight of our basic right, or completed attempt to ban "only these limited types of guns" moves us closer to more restrictive oversight, "now only these less limited types of guns" when the mini movements completely fail to work. We know this. The playbook is apparent. Even those who are in favor of moderate approaches know that this is the agenda of many of their allies.

I believe that there are better options to reduce crime and control illegal guns. The law just signed today by Chris Christie in NJ didn't suggest anything I've overly opposed to. Permit's to carry concealed/open I don't oppose, unless they are priced unattainable,then it is another story. I believe that the government can abridge the right for public safety or any other reason, but not infringe it.

When the government starts going after weapons which have the primary function of opposing tyranny and have very little to do with violent crime or they attempt to stop law abiding citizens from attaining CCW permits - this is an infringement.
It is arguable that fully automatic weapons are more harmful than necessary in civilian life - even to oppose tyranny. Most troops hardly ever use full-auto due to the waste and innacuracy. Limitation of this feature could make a minimally trained civilian population more effective in battle and wouldn't allow for 30 rounds to fire in 3 seconds in a crowded subway station. This is an abridgment of the right, banning ar-15's, AK's and the like would eliminate the number 1 and 2 small arms weapons used to fight tyranny worldwide, hobbling our ability to do so if needed. Zany? maybe

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

While I am not even going to attempt to address any later legislative decisions (my knowledge of them is severely lacking), I would like to voice my support for Montmorency's position.

The text reads:

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.

Now the disputes regarding the intent of the amendment demonstrate ipso facto that this text is ambiguous. However, the most natural way (for me) to read the text is: since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people as a body to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It seems clear the the logical connection between the two clauses is one of consequence. The right to bear arms is necessary because a militia is necessary. The right to bear arms flows from the necessity of a militia to a free state. More pertinently, 'the people' seems to be referred to as a collective, similar to 'the states' or 'the executive': ie. 'the people in assembly' or 'the people as the foundation of the body politic'. Given this, the right applies to 'the people' in contrast to 'the state'. If one takes the definition of 'militia' as meaning a civilian force organised on a local level without official state involvement, then the wording of the Second Amendment seems to indicate that local militias are protected explicitly from government interference.

The individual right, then, would seem to be implicit, resting on the suggestion that a civilian militia requires arms to be effective. A la Lemur's suggestion...

An explicit individual right would read: ...the right of each person to keep and bear arms... (cf. Fifth Amendment).
@Montmorency: Which section of the Fourteenth Amendment do you read as upholding an individual right?

[Montmorency]

No - I can point out "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed",

\

Seriously? We just went over this.

To reiterate: there is no specifically-enshrined right for individuals to possess weapons. It just does not exist. There is a specifically-enshrined right for localities up to state-level to organize armed bodies of men. "The people", not "persons", may "keep and bear" arms.

So just as there is no textual right for you to own an AR-15, there is no textual right for a woman to have an abortion. They must both flow substantially from the 14th Amendment.

Or cf.

More pertinently, 'the people' seems to be referred to as a collective, similar to 'the states' or 'the executive': ie. 'the people in assembly' or 'the people as the foundation of the body politic'.

Which section of the Fourteenth Amendment do you read as upholding an individual right?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

For all this talk of fighting tyranny, by the way, Dawg fails to realize something crucial: a fight against the State or states would not be a battle of government against thousands of individual lone wolves.

Such a struggle would be spearheaded by small communities and segments of communities, bands of dozens and hundreds coalescing around their geographic core, defending themselves and their neighborhoods against the encroachment of the governments' coercive arm, establishing a new system which they would find suitable for themselves. That's what the Second Amendment is meant to provide for. That's what it would be about, not Rambo storming the White House with his 3D-printed gun to defeat the evil executive and restore the True America.

Dawg's extreme individualism defeats not only his 'freedom-fighting' aspirations but the spirit of the 2nd Amendment he so cherishes as well.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have no fear of extremism. I am most certainly an extremist on this and a few other issues. Remember when people had always been ruled by tyrants and colonials decided that minimal tax increases just couldn't be tolerated, since they didn't feel as though they had an representative in government? That was not a "reasonable" response to government. Those people had much greater freedom from the red tape of government than we do today.

Extremism makes the world go round. Since the effectiveness of pump action shotguns in a room full of unarmed people has been proven, it is only a matter of time before people begin using them for an increasing number of attacks. This goes to the heart of our point that all guns are deadly, so the false assumption that you can somehow ban the "most dangerous" ones is faulty. It is just a piecemeal attempt to bam all of them over time by divide and conquer.

Also, please address the "right of the people" as a collective but not individual right in the 4th amendment. Do people have a right to petition their government as individuals, or merely as a group? The reality is - individuals have rights - groups do not have rights beyond those of the composite individuals. You have quoted the question, but failed to address it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Also, I fail to understand your criticism of my supposed strategy for a hypothetical insurgency. Is the government telling us how we must rebel now? What are you talking about?

Here is my fictional, non planned idea of how it would break down
Maybe in some areas it would be a traditional coalescence of like minded individuals to resist and break away. In other areas, where fewer people shared similar sentiments, individuals would engage in a clandestine insurgency. Small groups and individuals with minimal hierarchy would drive this. The US government is best at confronting united and visible targets. It is poorer at fighting forces which integrate into the surrounding culture and cannot be distinguished from friend.

Secession, BTW is the worst possible option. During the civil war, the only reason that slavery was outlawed was because the South broke away. Once they had, antislavery legislation was passed by a Federal government consisting of Northerners who no longer had to consider the voting power of Southern Democrats. I'm glad it was, but federal government opponents don't want something like that to happen on the issues that we hold dear. It is always folly to quit a body which will still control you after your departure, especially when you think that they aren't paying you enough deference as it is. The likelihood of successful secession is low, so don't consider it until the governing body has been carved out to a point where it is hollow. The army has sappers to first undermine their expected enemy.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So, in your conception of the Constitution, within the privileges and immunities of citizens, as bolded above, is the individual right to bear arms. This would happen since this amendment seems to reframe the more general points of the Constitution regarding the 'people' and 'state' into individual rights of citizens...

But since this, once again, is implicit, 'the privileges and immunities' are nowhere specified: they must be supplied by inference. If the Second Amendment allows for the right of the 'citizen body' to bear arms, then, by the time of the Fourteenth, it must be regarded as an individual privilege conferred by citizen status in order for it to be strengthened by the change.

Now, this may or may not be the case: I do not know enough about the circumstances of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to be sure (dated to the Civil War? - in which case this would probably not be the case...) but this merely points out that the Constitution cannot be read as a complete legal document without supplying a lot of information by inference. The question must then be raised: should we follow the perceived intent, or adapt it to the current circumstances?

If you are following the intent of the text, by following the historical context as closely as possible in cases of ambiguity, it seems clear that an individual right to bear arms was not passed in 1791, nor does it seem that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, was to confirm or strengthen such a right. Strictly, the text itself allows for the interpretation of a right to personal arms, from the Fourteenth Amendment, but this in itself is, in my opinion, open to question if one considers the intent of the lawmakers...

[ICantSpellDawg]

In fact, in reading the text, if the people have a right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment, and it can be abridged but not infringed by the Federal government; the 14th amendment prevents the States from even modifying the right to keep and bear arms, as the words "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge any privileges or immunities" is included. This is the basis for incorporation to the States that the Supreme Court used in the Heller and McDonald decisions.

It is also the basis by which they will strike down the bans in my home state and many other urban areas. The "inference" that you speak of is based on the 9th amendment and the 14th together with stare decisis. The Second amendment is great, but the 9th:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

And 14th, as you had posted, have been helpful in demolishing other Federal laws, some bad and others good. My interest, honestly, is to overturn as many laws as possible that don't specifically protect the rights of the people. I have minimal respect for government, except for where it protects the rights of people.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

In fact, in reading the text, if the people have a right to keep and bear arms under the second amendment, and it can be abridged but not infringed by the Federal government; the 14th amendment prevents the States from even modifying the right to keep and bear arms, as the words "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge any privileges or immunities" is included...

Not 'any', but 'the' according to the text which I have been consulting. A small, yet important, difference. 'Any' implies that 'privileges or immunities' outside of those explicitly outlined within the constitution exist, which the states cannot abridge. 'The', which is more sensible, suggests only those rights already guaranteed within the constitution are extended to individuals.

While I acknowledge the point raised, that if the Second Amendment provides for an individual right, then the states would be prevented from infringing upon it, this merely reiterates, in my eyes, the wider point that the Second Amendment only provides for the collective right of 'the populus' to bear arms rather than 'quisque civis'.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not 'any', but 'the' according to the text which I have been consulting. A small, yet important, difference. 'Any' implies that 'privileges or immunities' outside of those explicitly outlined within the constitution exist, which the states cannot abridge. 'The', which is more sensible, suggests only those rights already guaranteed within the constitution are extended to individuals.

While I acknowledge the point raised, that if the Second Amendment provides for an individual right, then the states would be prevented from infringing upon it, this merely reiterates, in my eyes, the wider point that the Second Amendment only provides for the collective right of 'the populus' to bear arms rather than 'quisque civis'.

OK, sorry I added any - I was typing it rather than cut paste.

But you will acknowledge that the 2nd amendment as an individual right is not merely my opinion at this point but settled case law? That it is the commonly held belief codified in laws throughout most of the country? This question may have held more weight 10 years ago, but now the right has become even clearer. Do you expect this court to reneg?

Even if the right to individually keep and bear arms wasn't implied by 2a (which it was) - it would still clearly be a right, non-enumerated, literally retained by the people. At this point are there more firearms than people in the US? To suggest that a right which literally and materially exists does not exist would be disparaging. It is fine if we do it academically, but to do so as a matter of Federal, State or Local law would be unconstitutional, then according to the 9th and 14th amendments. 3 amendments protect this radical right. Many other s further support it.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Oh, to be clear, I am not suggesting that any court would uphold/raise the objections or claims which I have made. I am merely making observations regarding the text itself and its apparent intent. I think that it is important that a legal text be assessed on those two points, and if, when interpreted, it is deemed inadequate for its purpose then it should be amended.

From my perspective, it seems clear that the text of the Bill of Rights does not guarantee an individual right to bear arms, and that, following this, the Fourteenth amendment cannot reinforce an individual right that is not attested earlier. Given this, in my opinion, it would be incorrect to cite the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an inalienable right to bear arms.

To reiterate: While I accept that, for practical purposes, in the USA, it may be settled as case law to the contrary, I am interested in the text and intent of the original document, neither of which protect individual gun rights.

[Montmorency]

So, in your conception of the Constitution, within the privileges and immunities of citizens, as bolded above, is the individual right to bear arms. This would happen since this amendment seems to reframe the more general points of the Constitution regarding the 'people' and 'state' into individual rights of citizens...

But since this, once again, is implicit, 'the privileges and immunities' are nowhere specified: they must be supplied by inference. If the Second Amendment allows for the right of the 'citizen body' to bear arms, then, by the time of the Fourteenth, it must be regarded as an individual privilege conferred by citizen status in order for it to be strengthened by the change.

Bearing arms was always an "individual privilege". The amendment merely makes it so that this privilege, among other imaginable ones, can not be arbitrarily restricted or abolished.

should we follow the perceived intent, or adapt it to the current circumstances?

Too many concepts and privileges exist that are too novel. It is better to accept that the authors of the 9th, 10th, 14th, and other amendments made them specially extensionable, so as to give them a longer shelf-life.

the 14th amendment prevents the States from even modifying the right to keep and bear arms, as the words "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge any privileges or immunities" is included.

Without due process, mind you. If states can move to nearly heavily restrict and corral legal abortion, then it should be perfectly within the rights of states to do the same with legal (private) gun ownership.

The US government is best at confronting united and visible targets. It is poorer at fighting forces which integrate into the surrounding culture and cannot be distinguished from friend.

As it happens, it is extremely easy to isolate and destroy lone wolves who do not cooperate with like-minded fighters and who have no plans other than to attack the government until it collapses or they die. Everyone we've fought in Iraq and Afghanistan - not to mention Vietnam - was a "united" target.

It is just a piecemeal attempt to bam all of them over time by divide and conquer.

No one important wants to ban all guns everywhere. Not even Bloomberg would really want to disarm rural folk and people living on the edge of wilderness. This is entirely in your imagination.

Also, please address the "right of the people" as a collective but not individual right in the 4th amendment.

You can not conceive of a distinction between communal and individual?

Do people have a right to petition their government as individuals, or merely as a group?

Private individuals own guns. These private individuals are militia members or are potential militia members. The point is that the highest levels of government do not monopolize coercive force away from the lowest-level units. What's not to get?

Once "the people" and "the militia" are no longer interchangeable...

[Husar]

Like I said... Don't mess with our guns.

A magazine is not a gun and neither is it necessary for a gun.
A tank and an artillery piece also have a gun but the NRA does not defend your right to have those.

Further, what about all your constitutional rights that were violated due to the few deaths a year caused by terrorism? Where are the large advocacy groups getting politicians out of office over those?

[rvg]

A magazine is not a gun and neither is it necessary for a gun.
A tank and an artillery piece also have a gun but the NRA does not defend your right to have those.

Being able to shoot fewer bullets directly affects the functionality of the gun. End of story. If more politicians are willing to skewer their political careers over this, they're welcome to try. We'll send them all home packing.

Further, what about all your constitutional rights that were violated due to the few deaths a year caused by terrorism? Where are the large advocacy groups getting politicians out of office over those?

This is an entirely different issue that doesn't have a thing to do with guns or gun rights. Wanna discuss this? Let's start a new thread.

[Husar]

Being able to shoot fewer bullets directly affects the functionality of the gun.

So does having only a 7.62mm instead of a 120mm caliber gun.
How many politicians were sent home over that?

This is an entirely different issue that doesn't have a thing to do with guns or gun rights. Wanna discuss this? Let's start a new thread.

It is important in terms of priorities, which are skewed IMO. You say you need guns to defend your liberties and because they're a right, but at the same time you give up a lot of liberties and rights over some terrorist attack that was pretty much a once-in-a-lifetime event. If you continue to focus on guns, so many other liberties and rights might be taken away that the guns won't be of much help anymore.

And what if an employer does not want to hire you if you own or at least bring a gun? Is that fair because it's a private business and what if most employers adapt such policies?

[rvg]

So does having only a 7.62mm instead of a 120mm caliber gun. How many politicians were sent home over that?

You can actually own artillery, provided that it was manufactured before 1901 (or is it 1899, something like that). Plenty of people own fully functioning cannons, mortars, etc. As for why nobody raises an issue over not being able to buy a new Howitzer? I guess not enough people want that for it to become a hot topic. America is all about the will of the people and if enough people decide that they want to own artillery, then I can assure you that you'll be seeing AA guns in people's driveways.

It is important in terms of priorities, which are skewed IMO. You say you need guns to defend your liberties and because they're a right, but at the same time you give up a lot of liberties and rights over some terrorist attack that was pretty much a once-in-a-lifetime event. If you continue to focus on guns, so many other liberties and rights might be taken away that the guns won't be of much help anymore.

It might look skewed to you, because it's difficult to put a value on a right that you've never had. Here guns are a tradition, a way of life. Banning guns here is like banning alcohol: bad idea. I work for a U.S. branch of a German manufacturing company, and we get German folks coming here from the HQ on a regular basis. Invariably, when they come here they want to do two things: shopping and shooting. They loooove going to the range and unloading a bunch of rounds. They can't do that back in Kaiserslautern.

And what if an employer does not want to hire you if you own or at least bring a gun? Is that fair because it's a private business and what if most employers adapt such policies?

What kind of moron would bring a gun to work? As for owning one, in that case the state of Michigan should have a 70% unemployment rate. Every busboy here is a hunter.

[Idaho]

I was in Atlanta this week. I watched daily stories of shootings, as well as the big story about the shooting in the Navy Yard.

On the way to the airport I stopped off at a shooting range and fired some guns for the first time in my life. It was great fun. I really enjoyed it.

You have too many guns already, the stable door is open, and the horse long since bolted. You have a country with huge wealth disparities and huge social problems that you seem unable to address or even take responsibility for as a society. You are just going to have to accept a very high rate of gun violence.

While I'd love to do some more shooting in this country, I'd rather have a safe country.

[Husar]

You can actually own artillery, provided that it was manufactured before 1901 (or is it 1899, something like that). Plenty of people own fully functioning cannons, mortars, etc. As for why nobody raises an issue over not being able to buy a new Howitzer? I guess not enough people want that for it to become a hot topic. America is all about the will of the people and if enough people decide that they want to own artillery, then I can assure you that you'll be seeing AA guns in people's driveways.

Yes, my point was that if you don't need military-grade anti-tank weapons then you probably won't need military-grade magazines either.

It might look skewed to you, because it's difficult to put a value on a right that you've never had. Here guns are a tradition, a way of life. Banning guns here is like banning alcohol: bad idea. I work for a U.S. branch of a German manufacturing company, and we get German folks coming here from the HQ on a regular basis. Invariably, when they come here they want to do two things: shopping and shooting. They loooove going to the range and unloading a bunch of rounds. They can't do that back in Kaiserslautern.

I've said before that I think about this much like Idaho just said.
And they can shoot in Kaiserslautern (link, link) or close to there. It's just that most Germans don't seem to want to join a sport shooting club or similar and go there regularly because that is a prerequisite to owning a gun if you're not a hunter or being seriously threatened. Then again our rate of gun ownership isn't as low anyway, I just found this interesting link: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany
I had a teacher who was a registered hunter and owned several rifles. You just can't own a gun legally and do whatever you want, you could say with the right also come several responsibilities.

What kind of moron would bring a gun to work?

Ahem...funny you mention that...
See:

Non law enforcement was barred the use of firearms on premises and it took police 3 minutes to arrive - 3 minutes where 11 innocent, defenseless people were killed. Firearm ended the assault.

If that doesn't read like "People should have been allowed to bring their own firearms to work" then I don't know what it means...
A gun for self-defense should always be in arm's reach and even then seeing a gun as a defensive tool is quite illusory.

I also just found this gem:

And BTW OP, contrary to what the left may be telling you, the shooter did not have an assault rifle in the naval yard shooting. He had what you thought was reasonable: a pistol. (as well as a shotgun) He apparently came there with just the shotgun (you remember the thing Joe Biden said was the reasonable gun for home defense, and not the scary military one), shot guards with pistols and took their pistols, and shot a guard with an AR-15 and took that. That is right, a dude with a pistol got in a shoot out with a dude with an AR-15, and the all-mighty, bullet spitting AR-15 did not win the day.

You can ambush someone armed with a minigun and kill him with a stone under the right circumstances. That's why a gun is not a defensive tool while a bullet proof vest or an armored suit is. It's also good that you mention how he could pick up the guns of some of his victims, maybe he couldn't have gotten in as easily if he had had to carry a lot of ammunition himself.

[rvg]

Yes, my point was that if you don't need military-grade anti-tank weapons then you probably won't need military-grade magazines either.

But that's the thing: it's not up to you to decide what I need. It's up to me.

I had a teacher who was a registered hunter and owned several rifles. You just can't own a gun legally and do whatever you want, you could say with the right also come several responsibilities.

That's the thing: you put in lots of regulations, and gun ownership stops being fun. The guys just wanted to go and empty a couple of magazines. They could easily do that here even without buying a firearm or joining a club...

You can ambush someone armed with a minigun and kill him with a stone under the right circumstances. That's why a gun is not a defensive tool while a bullet proof vest or an armored suit is. It's also good that you mention how he could pick up the guns of some of his victims, maybe he couldn't have gotten in as easily if he had had to carry a lot of ammunition himself.

You can ambush and kill someone with a fork. That's not really an argument against guns.

While I'd love to do some more shooting in this country, I'd rather have a safe country.

And you have it. I'd like to keep mine exactly the way it is now. At least as far as firearms go.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I support bringing guns to work. You have to be extremely careful and recognize that you could do more harm than good, but it is not smart to have 150 people completely helpless. Im not against a permit and training requirement for this. My last job had security doors. This implies that we were believed to be a greater target than, let's say, a plumbing company. The doors were crap, anyone with a will could enter with whatever they wanted and rampage unopposed.

[Husar]

You can ambush and kill someone with a fork. That's not really an argument against guns.

I never said it's an argument against guns. Don't ask me to quote anyone but I often read the argument that a gun is a defensive tool and I just felt like arguing that it is in fact an offensive tool that can be used in defensive situations but does not offer protection by merely being worn on your body or being close.

That's the thing: you put in lots of regulations, and gun ownership stops being fun.

Yeah, but deadly weapons aren't supposed to be fun. I thought it's a serious issue of rights, self-defense and being able to overthrow the government and/or resist a Chinese invasion.

Despite that most gun owners follow safety regulations becuse they know that a gun is not a fun toy and can kill them or others if they don't follow certain rules while they handle it. Those who don't often actually do harm others like the guy who shot his own wife trying to use his gun as a drill or the one who got shot by a little child that was playing with his gun.
Our regulations have a very similar purpose, which is to make sure that only responsible people handle guns responsibly. It's not a guarantee of course.