...a couple staffers had been armed?
Replies are closed for this discussion.
"so we just make all guns illegal"
Absolutely true. Guns have no legitimate function in society worth even one life - except as protection from other guns, which is, of course, circular. The idea that they deter tyranny is simply laughable. The laws just recently re-affirmed by congress place the US well down the road toward tyranny already. So who are you going to shoot.
Unfortunately the idea of doing away with all guns has one minor drawback - it's impossible. Nor can I see "peripheral" laws (gun type, magazine size) having any practical purpose.
So, following your logic that nothing is going to change because this is America; I should be at home bearing children and taking care of the house (because that's the role women had when the nation was founded, so that couldn't have changed), I wouldn't have a right to vote (again, because women had no voting rights when the nation was founded), and we would all still be using muskets as the weapon of choice (because due to the lack of change in America no advancement in weapons were made here).
There have been a few instances where because I was armed, I was able to protect myself and my child. I'm a small female and apparently a GREAT target for would be robbers/rapists/what have you. I was also fortunate to be raised with an appreciation of guns and was told they are not toys, they are not to just be used to get my own way, and how to defend myself. The military continued that education. The military also taught me how to kill people with my hands if necessary, should we outlaw hands as well because somebody MIGHT kill somebody with them.
Have you TRIED to purchase a machine gun? You can't just waltz into the gun store and be like, "Oh hey, yeah, I'd like that machine gun." Outlawing certain weapons isn't going to decrease their use in crime. Criminals, unfortunately, don't like to follow the rules. Hence why they are criminals. Outlawing alcohol didn't stop it's production and distribution during prohibition. Those laws against drugs we have has done SO WELL at stopping the production, distribution, and use of drugs, right?
I've noticed that people outside the US are utterly ignorant of the laws we do have and have visions of us being able to walk into a gun shop and come out with a wheelbarrow heaped with full auto Uzis. Hollywood seems to have something to do with causing this as they show people in gun shops then show them shooting full auto weaponry. (I ran into a Kiwi once who was adamant that both Columbine shooters were using full auto Uzis, it turns out that ONE had a semi-automatic Tec 9, which--by the way--is such a piece of shit it more than likely jammed every five rounds.)
So let me explain it to them.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it illegal to transfer a full-auto gun (i.e., one that shoots multiple rounds on one press of the trigger) without the buyer paying a $200 tax (a huge amount of money back then), and the buyer had to fill out a shit-ton of paperwork and he needed the approval of local law enforcement, which they had the right to refuse arbitrarily (i.e., because the police chief or sheriff had a bug up his butt). This, by the way, is classified in the United States Code as a tax law (Title 26) rather than criminal law (Title 18), unless something has changed in the last 15 years or so. This is a most peculiar tax in that you have to beg the government's permission to pay it!
The guns themselves are registered (and doG help you if you are caught with one and don't have the tax receipt with you), and it is now (since 1986) illegal to manufacture new ones for that market, which means that now they cost thousands of dollars (I should have invested in some about 20 years ago). Apparently only one or two of these guns have ever been used in a crime.
All this Sturm und Drang about assault weapons when I'm sure 99.999% of gun robberies, assaults, and murders are done with a pistol or shotgun, two kinds of guns which will never be banned in the U.S.
Indeed. You of course are highlighting yet another way in which this whole thing is absolutely ridiculous.
Not only are machine guns not the issue, "assault weapons" really aren't either. By the way there is no coherent definition of an "assualt weapon" other than "whatever makes Diane Feinstein unhappy" An assault rifle on the other hand is well defined, and will have full auto capability. Which AR-15s don't.
Oh and by the way thank you for making the world a safer place by exercising your right to self defense.
You can thank the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Act of 1994 (plus possibly others, depending on where you live) for the paperwork and hassle to purchase the guns. The concealed carry hassle is necessary because open carry is not legal everywhere, and not customary everywhere, and concealed carry is usually illegal without a license (Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont, I believe are exceptions).
Because open carry is not common even where legal, if you want to be able to defend yourself and not simply become the first person shot at by a maniac (i.e., with no warning) you have to conceal. And I hope you bought the biggest thing you could handle whilst being able to conceal it.
Speaking of the NRA...LOL...I just got an E-mail inviting me to a convention in TX, the featured Speaker is.....wait for it.....
Past Speakers include Oliver North, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin...LOL
I won't be attending. :)
I am a member of the NRA to support the defense of my 2nd Amendment Rights, the crazy crap just happens to come with the membership, I just file that part in the trash, where I think it belongs.
TWikipedia: T is the 20th letter in the ISO basic Latin alphabet. →
"bellum omnium contra omnes"= War of all against all
"Helter Skelter", Manson be blessed?
Sadly, I feel the vectors to that end at times....
One American's viewpoint
"Nowhere did I say just "not help." It depends on how it affects you. So you would help someone even if it kills yourself? No you wouldn't, we all know that, because no sane person would do that for a complete stranger."
It is possible that I am picking up on the, what I see, as a rather crude us of words to reference how you would relate to a stranger, and how you would evaluate their worth. I might be mistaken very badly, maybe it is a recidual from my catholic upbringing. I watched how street people were treated in Portland while I was in school there. I realized that I was watching a few of them decay slowly on the Park blocks over my two years, till a few were no longer there. And noticed now some of the local theists only helped, when it might mean that another 'soul' would be 'saved'. I only had a little more than these street people, but atleast I had a home to go back to. That 'watching', left me with something of a bitter taste, as a philosophy major, even a greater desire to change something, but a feeling of powerlessness. Latter I found myself passing through a similar state of being, but atleast I had a extensive support system, and never saw 'bottom'.