I Support the Second Amendment

@Jackaloftheazuresand So, a theoretical situation vs the current, ongoing situation of 400+ mass shootings per year? So, we're okay with killing each other, so long as it's not the government doing it?

Lastly, do you think a ragtag group of civilans could ever hope to overwhelm the superest super power of the super world? It would be impossible. The founding fathers had no idea what kind of tech was coming.

@Tatsumi Yes because if that situation occurs it will save many more. I think their is more we can do on other fronts but these weapons have to be available.

This is always what I hear, the tech. I have researched revolutionary movements that involve fighting and there are key things needed in all the successful ones. There is also a pattern for the tyrant. They start small and move to bigger things only when challenged. I think they do have a real chance. What people that ask this question every time seem to neglect is that you would rather just give in than fight, I can never accept that. You most certainly won't get it with melee weapons.

@Jackaloftheazuresand Plenty of countries are doing well without civilian firearms. The U.K., Japan, Australia. So is this "having" to have firearms a unique situation to America?

No. I wouldn't give in. But, I also won't ignore the hundreds of thousands of deaths happening in front of me. Half a million people have died to legal firearms, 1999-2015.

533,789 people. Not counting injuries. That's the upper amount of people estimated to have been killed in Nazi concentration camps.

Your reasoning makes no sense, to me. "Well, I might get cancer, so I'm going to cut my leg off rifht now. Then I won't die from cancer."

@Tatsumi They do so until they have the government try to take over then they are nowhere.

Then you know that the only chance you have is these guns. Like I said there are other fronts to find solutions for so we don't ignore those deaths. The weapons have to be there they don't have to be everywhere or left free but they have to be there.

The body has no true equivalence to this situation so you won't understand my reasoning by using that.

@Jackaloftheazuresand No. Not "these" guns. I guaruntee you that if any rebellion rose up, black markets and foreign governments would be chomping at the bit to sell weaponry to it. Just like America has always done, itself, particularly in the Middle East.

More. It also increases the chances of civil war when there is *not* tyranny, but a simple disagreement with policy. So who decides what tyranny is and whether it's bad enough to denote the use of militias?

It has perfect equivalence in metaphor. Oh well, 500,000 people who have died in the last 16 years. [The leg] Acceptable losses. We need to protect the whole [defend against the [b]possibility[/b] of getting cancer]. That is the exact reasoning you are using.

But, to make it more accurate. Let's say you've had cancer before [a tyrannic government]. So, you know with some degree of certainty that you *could* get a recurrence of the cancer [tyranic government]. Do you cut the leg off or don't you?

@Tatsumi That notion is just as poor as the belief that we need the weapons to combat black market criminal customers, the number is so small. The Middle East doesn't have a restriction on its underground trade like the US would have in such an event.

A civil war isn't always a bad thing though, yes people die but it can be a cause for good. I've got your decision, when the people are being attacked, hauled off and executed or imprisoned at any opposition. The people involved will have to decide but if I'm one of them that will be my reason. The basic principle at play here is that my plan leaves the people with reasonable power and yours would strip them, you take rather than build on what is present. I'm noticing that you make no mention of those other fronts I bring up, shouldn't we try those first and see how they work before we go all out?

But not in stats and function and that's where it counts, I could just say would you remove your arms(weapons) so they don't get caught in machinery(deaths)? A metaphor can be applied to anything when you don't take those into account. Organs are removed on a regular basis for cancer risks as well, and that can just be based on family history so it does happen. Nazis happened, the British happened, the French happened, the Vietnamese happened, North Korea does it today. We know these things are possible several times over. I would need reflective statistics to make a decision on the leg otherwise you are using unrealistic talking points rather than real world application.

@Jackaloftheazuresand What other fronts? I wasn't aware you mentioned any.

I will say one thing, in order to bridge the gap. Switzerland has a high ownership of civilian firearms; however, they have an extremely small homicide rate. That proves it's possible for civilians to be responsible with firearms. But, American culture is diverse and not homogeneous. The same kind of thing I highly question the possibility of, in America. What fronts were you referencing?

Power corrupts--as it has been doing. The people have no need of power. In fact, that power is in their direct disinterest, as shown by half a million deaths in 16 years.

Arms are not the same thing as firearms. They habe an inherenly positive use. More positive uses, in fact. They can be weapons, but their sole purpose is not murder. The same pro-gun argument for vehicles.

Apparently, you don't need real-world statistics, because you've already decided to cut the leg off.

A bank could decide to steal all your money. Do you still leave your money in their hands?

@Tatsumi For one, check ins with guns instead of the one and done we have. It was also mentioned once that the US does not pay enough attention to the quality of the mental health in the general populace and you said it here just now that the culture differs from Switzerland, I'd like to see a more responsible class of people.

I can't say much to this part, I just disagree on that thought.

They are always related to weaponized equipment, firearms also have multiple purposes and the better thing to say is that their sole purpose is violent in nature.

I have already said that I don't accept your parallel and I gave that partial answer only because of your insistence. You cannot put the two together and continue to use that since I told you it was an imperfect representation. I have made my plan on the actual situation and not the cancer scenario.

I don't use banks, that's the truth too. The interest is not enough of an incentive for me and I don't trust them.

@Jackaloftheazuresand Ma ii. Okay. We have inherent difference of opinion. I would like to continue, but I don't really have the patience or fortitude necessary for a reasonable or responsible debate, right now, alas.

Though, you did make several points I haven't heard before; I will think on further.