Uh... no. This isn't about the NRA, it's about the US Constitution... the supreme law of the land. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees all American citizens the right to bear arms, unconditionally. That's just all there is to it.
By this logic, I don't have a right to an opinion on North Korea, as I am from outside that country. The exchange of ideas doesn't respect national borders, and it hasn't proven difficult for an American citizen like me to find information to make an informed opinion on varying degrees of gun legislation overseas. Omar Mateen came off as suspicious at a gun shop, and the clerk refused to sell him anything. While the incident was reported to the FBI, the clerk did not have definitive identification on Mateen at the time (again, he didn't end up buying anything). The restrictions placed to prevent some people from buying firearms should be expanded. If the various political proposals were simply kept here, I don't think we would be hearing about the issue of gun control so often. However, various politicians and anti-gun groups are going for banning certain classifications of firearms, even though nearly all of such firearms are not used for any illegal purposes. Most mass shootings in the US are actually carried out with handguns, but the focus is on the low hanging fruit of "assault weapons," as calling for a handgun ban would be political suicide, given how many people own them. The term "assault rifle" is also deliberately misused by the media to spread fear (they also employ a more generalized "assault weapon" in their terminology). A genuine assault rifle is a compact, shoulder fired weapon chambered in an intermediate cartridge that is capable of selective fire (the ability to toggle between semi-automatic and full-automatic and/or burst fire). They are typically fed from detachable box magazines holding at least twenty cartridges. The firearms targeted by these anti-gun advocates are nothing more than semi-automatic rifles. In fact, the classification of an "assault weapon" has historically been defined by mere cosmetics. For instance, let us look here: Both of these rifles are in fact semi-automatic Kalashnikov variants. However, since the bottom variant looks "scary," it has historically been classified as an "assault weapon" by the media and various anti-gun groups. Both the NRA and various gun ban groups are too heavily dependent on fear mongering (the former for the purpose of boosting sales, and the latter for the purpose of getting those unfamiliar with firearms on board with draconian gun control legislation proposals). Furthermore, while there are issues with violent crime, I have pointed out in a previous post that the US violent crime rate is down from where it was in the early 1990's. Things aren't as bad as they were in spite of the ban on "assault weapons" expiring in 2004 (it was going down during the ban's duration, but it continued to go down even after that ban expired). The media is employing raw emotion, chicanery, and cherry picked statistics, as usual. The Swiss and the Czechs don't have nearly as many shootings as the US does, even though their civilians can own the same types of weapons. The firearms themselves aren't the issue, but we do have various problems that need to be addressed over here in the US. These include income inequality, institutionalized racism, a lack of access to healthcare (including the mental variant), and negative cultural aspects (violence, anti-intellectualism, excessive individualism). What is meant by "do something" in this case? I reiterate my call for focusing on income inequality, institutionalized racism, lack of access to healthcare, etc. over here in the United States. Needless to say, it seems that neither the NRA nor the various anti-gun politicians and advocacy groups have an answer here.
No matter the situation, I don't believe any citizen, of any creed or nation should legally carry a gun, or weapon that can fire projectiles that has more than 6 shots or a singular loading mechanism with more than 8-10 shots. In defense, 6 shots are surely sufficient when you need to deal with a situation, or even when hunting. I don't see any ideal situation in which a trained individual will need more than that to handle the task at hand. I'm not someone whom is anti-gun or pro-gun, I just think people are dodging the fact that anyone in the US, or any country that allows burst, or fully-automatic weapon that fires projectiles, can pull up on a busy street and instantly injure, or/and kill people, regardless of whether it is a minority or majority of owners do/don't perform these acts, it is still open to anyone who has access to such devices that they can do this. However, I do think self-defense, especially with the issues of radicalism and nut-jobs going around at hand is something very significant, so I do welcome semi-automatic, short-magazine guns. That's just my opinion.
I really don't understand why I have to keep repeating myself. That is literally the only argument I need to make. The Founding Fathers made it very clear that citizens of the United States of America have the right to bear arms, and they also made it clear that this right could not be taken away. Why is that so goddamn hard for some people to understand?
@Ridley Wolf I never said a thing regarding what the founding fathers said, I said what I THINK should be the case, I also said any country, not just the US. If you're going to address my post in the way that you did at least have the courtesy to read through it, and give it a valuable argument that may show it be fundamentally inefficient to have it in such a way, not to crawl back to the "I have my rights!" factor, something someone written in law a good three-hundred years ago. Thanks.
What I'm saying is that no matter what anybody wants or thinks should be the case, the absolute final word on American gun rights was written over two hundred years ago. It's also important to remember that these laws were written by men who just got out of a long and bloody war with a tyrannical government wasn't properly representing them. It's important to understand that the Bill of Rights was written, first and foremost, to protect people from being abused by their government. The Second Amendment has never been about hunting, sport shooting, or even self-defense. It was written to ensure that American citizens will always have a way to fight back should the government ever get out of control and become tyrannical. That's why I find your assertion that we don't need more than six bullets to be naive at best. Because should it ever come down to it, the American people will need to be able to fight an oppressive government on equal terms.
Any day now a tyrant shall appear... Any. Day. Now. I'm not saying don't have guns, as I said before - you won. Have your guns, but if we're keeping score...
And why do you think that is? Ever think that maybe the knowledge of the inevitable consequences is what's keeping our leaders from crossing the line into tyranny?
I think that they are generally good people and that the fear of being shot by the populace is not the one thing that keeps them from being evil megalomaniacs. Although, Trump is making me think about it...
Yes, I'm not that jaded. People before us thought about it as well, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution eliminates the possibility of someone taking over forever. And if they tried, the armed forces would take care of it well before it got to people using their second amendment powers to stop them.
It's still within the power of politicians to act tyrannically. Passing unjust laws, setting curfews, declaring martial law, etc... these are all powers that would be incredibly easy to abuse.
And then there's the last 10% There is no, "yet says he is also making "good points"?" cuz that's a joke too! cmon mate, read the room.
And what right do you have to determine who is allowed an opinion and who isn't? It's not as if the Internet is used by people all over the world, and not just Americans. That right there is a textbook example of "country before reason."
So what? It's not about where people live, it's about what they have to say. Would you be happy if someone from, say, the UK brushed off your opinions on, say, them leaving the European Union just because you don't live in the UK? Of course not. I don't care how much you love America, you can't pretend the rest of the world doesn't matter or exist unless it's convenient for you to acknowledge them.
Actually, you're completely wrong. I am capable of understanding and accepting that I do not live in the UK, I do not fully understand its laws and traditions, and thus any opinion I might form on the topic would almost certainly be uninformed or erroneous.
Ditto. I liked the comment, but I still want to emphasize it some more. Without experience, adding to the conversation has no merit because the words have no weight. It's like trying to talk about Steven Universe and never watching the show. Sure you've researched, read the wiki article and watched a few you-tube videos; but research doesn't give you the whole experience. I watched a you-tube video that said corruption comes from a gem being damaged. If you've watched the show you'd know that's incorrect, but if you just have the wiki and the video you don't have the expedience to know that information is wrong. Corrupted gems are described as damaged, but they're not physically damaged. Physical damaging a gem does not lead to corruption, but if your haven't seen the show how do you know that?
