re: The Armed Citizen: A week in review

quote:

---

quote:
Has it? I'm all ears.
There are more guns in the hands of more people in the US than any other time in our history and yet violent crime (especially gun-related crime) has been trending down for years. If the liberal talking point of more guns = more violence were true, statistics would prove that. Even the violence we have is mostly attributed to gang violence within a handful of cities.

---

I don't doubt you are correct, but where is a study showing it? Like I said, I'm genuinely all ears/eyes. I admittedly am not armed with any statistics. Nor am I arguing for stricter gun laws. I am merely arguing there is an argument/discussion to be had.

quote:

---

Because the 2A was written as a principle that doesn't change over time. The context of the 2A was a fight against the crown who didn't want the people to fight back; a tyrannical government as the founders saw it. They viewed government as something that was not trustworthy, which is why they created what we have with so many checks and balances so that no one body had too much power that could be used to remove freedom of the people. The 2A was one of these checks, being that when all others have failed, the people could "check" their own government by defending themselves against it using arms.

---

I understand why it was written, though just about every argument for it revolves around self-defense. And I understand the logic behind the more powerful the governments arms, the more powerful the citizens' also need be. But is that practical? If Jim Bob Redneck wins the Powerball tomorrow, should he be allowed free reign to develop a nuclear arsenal in his trailer park, that's cool? Or more realistically--Bill Gates? Warren Buffett? Mark Zuckerberg? If the answer is "no," we can agree that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute--there is a line. And it's ok to discuss where our current values would have ito draw it. If the answer is "yes," then I can certainly respect your logistic consistency.

quote:

---

Thing is.. there is no absolute right to bear arms.

---

quote:

---

Thing is.. there is no absolute right to bear arms. That's why the NRA has to lobby and bribe corrupt politicians like the rest of the lobbying scum ?

---

retarded as usual

quote:

---

I don't doubt you are correct, but where is a study showing it? Like I said, I'm genuinely all ears/eyes. I admittedly am not armed with any statistics. Nor am I arguing for stricter gun laws. I am merely arguing there is an argument/discussion to be had

---

A quick search yielded a bunch of results.

Justice Stats Link
2013 Pew Link

Gun sales have set records since Obama came in to office. You'd think that all these guns being purchased would lead to increase in homicides but the stats don't agree.

quote:

---

I understand why it was written, though just about every argument for it revolves around self-defense.

---

Self-defense is a valid defense of the 2A but it's not why the 2A was written. The founders assumed that self-defense was guaranteed because it's a foundational concept throughout history. What the founders were addressing, though, was not an individual's relationship to another individual, but the relationship between the governor and the governed, or the government and the citizen. We talk about self-defense in relation to guns because we see examples of that every day. What we don't see every day is the application of firearm ownership being used to preserve liberty against our government because (so far) the other checks the founders put in place are still working, more or less.

quote:

---

And I understand the logic behind the more powerful the governments arms, the more powerful the citizens' also need be. But is that practical? If Jim Bob Redneck wins the Powerball tomorrow, should he be allowed free reign to develop a nuclear arsenal in his trailer park, that's cool? Or more realistically--Bill Gates? Warren Buffett? Mark Zuckerberg? If the answer is "no," we can agree that the 2nd Amendment is not absolute--there is a line. And it's ok to discuss where our current values would have ito draw it. If the answer is "yes," then I can certainly respect your logistic consistency.

---

1. "Small arms" is what I was referring to. Anything a typical U.S. soldier can bring into battle, a citizen should have the same access to.
2. "Small arms" does not include nukes for obvious reasons and doesn't need to include nukes
3. I haven't said the 2A is absolute in terms of any weapon that can be conceived by the mind and produced by the hand of man (I'm against biological and chemical agents being produced and kept as a means of arms used by the citizenry, as well)
4. Limitations exist with every right, yes

We can talk about where those lines are drawn for limitations if you'd like, liberals are wanting guns banned because they kill people (that's the argument made, at least). There isn't a discussion made about what firearms should be allowed to effectively and appropriately fight for liberty against an oppressive government. Liberals laugh at such a notion and don't want to discuss it because they think it's absurd that we would ever need to fight the government (maybe some minds changed after the last election), or that such a thing could end in victory for the citizens. Because of that, a rational discussion isn't had. If you want to have one, that's fine, but bringing up nukes isn't a good way to start when we're talking about using small arms for self-defense within the context of this thread.

quote:

---

Obama sold more guns with his executive orders and language than probably anyone has in decades not named Bill Clinton.

---

I have two friends (one is a neighbor) that own gun stores. Let's just say you are right beyond doubt.

Every time Obama or the left said "gun laws" their cash registers when ching, ching, ching.

For a time, I couldn't even get .40 rounds and I'm as connected as one can be.

Those family discounts on guns are MFing awesome too.

quote:

---

.40 rounds

---

Least surprising thing I've seen today.

Totes.

quote:

---

I do enjoy when the gun geeks getting into pissing matches about 9mm vs .40.

---

Me too.

quote:

---

I do enjoy when the gun geeks getting into pissing matches about 9mm vs .40. 

---

advances in bullet design have brought the 9mm pretty much up to par with the 40 for effectiveness and stopping power. 9mm is cheaper, smoother, less wear and tear on the gun. There is a reason police departments are transitioning back to 9mm and my local gun shop has a bunch of used .40 sigs for sale. 9mm is where it's at, plenty of cheap ammo for practice, just make sure you get the good stuff for self defense carry