Off-Topic: Of course there are limits

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,143 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,605 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,169 messages

Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Welcome, Guest

Select View Mode: [ classic | beta | recent ]

	Name:	copperline -
	Subject:	Of course there are limits
	Date:	1/19/2013 9:59:05 PM

My understanding is that the Framers of the Constitution put the clause in because they had just fought a revolution against an oppressive government, most of their population was living in or near frontier areas, & gun ownership was as natural as owning a horse.   It was a good idea, and I think that people should have the right to bear arms and defend themselves then and now.   In the 1700's, an armed populace would have had a chance of defeating the Army of its day.   In 2013, that's a ridiculous thought.   Armed civilians aren't what will keep the US military from taking over the country, so I don't think we need to be arming ourselves for that purpose.   Home defense weaponry is different, and will always be OK in the US.

The situation has changed and individual citizens can now buy really powerful military weapons that have no practical use outside of a battlefield.   As those weapons circulate and we add more to the overall total of assault weapons in people's hands... then I think you will see them in mass shootings.   At least a crazy person with a 20 gauge bird-gun isn't going to do as much damage as the same guy with an AK-47.

It's all about lowering the overall risk, not about depriving citizens of their right to defend themselves.   The impact on the rate of violence in the country probably won't go down quickly because of just gun control... other things will have to happen to see that change.