You don't need to understand anything about others desire or use for guns.
You are owed absolutely nothing in terms of justification for someone to exercise their right, except when their exercising it directly interferes with the exercising of yours, and you're in a court of law.


Guns are not cars. Guns are a right recognized federally by constitution, cars/the use of public roads are a privilege granted by the state.
A more appropriate comparison would be to dictionary's.
A gun is to the second amendment as a dictionary is to the first amendment.
Legislating firearms, even the industry, is like trying to legislate the dictionary industry and believing people will stop being motivated to use certain words or finding new words to express themselves.

Other than that, there are legal guidelines in the manufacture of weapons similar to those of cars. People are lazy and not unified. They allow their rights to be eroded.
Anyway, there are guidelines. Which protect the end user. Not the potential victim.
They may not go 400 miles per hour, but they also go above 5 miles per hour.
A car traveling 50 MPH will kill a pedestrian just as much as a car going 400 MPH.
If there was a constitutional amendment stating "the right of the people to travel as fast as possible over ground shall not be infringed," I think there would be "street legal" cars that could go 400 MPH.

Also, states do have laws similar to street legal cars (i.e. designated places for use/non use) for firearms. Like no guns in schools, no guns in bars, no firearms in public buildings like the courthouse. Also in the manufacture of firearms. Like if you drop a gun it won't go off. They're simply not built that way anymore. Some the industry have chosen to do for themselves, like an indicator when it's loaded.

Not to mention, there are state/federal rules limiting the use of cars. e.g. no drinking and driving, no driving over 25 MPH in a school zone, no texting and driving.
Government can pass all the laws it wants trying to dictate use.
Laws do not stop people from speeding, texting, drinking, excessive speed for a particular road (a 25 mph rated curve can't handle someone going 75 let alone 400 mph).


I just find this kinda laughable.
Where to start.

There are 100-300+ million guns in civilian hands in the U.S.
There are 300+ million people in the U.S.
1 in 3-5 people in the U.S. live in a household with guns.

The military is comprised of .4% of the population of the U.S.
There are 537 elected officials in Washington that control that military to some degree.

Several of our wars over the past 100 years were entered into by the U.S. under false pretenses, misinterpreted or staged events.
Vietnam, WWII, Iraq II, Korea, Bay of pigs.

The U.S. government is the biggest arms dealer in the world.
Remember the Iran Contra affair? CIA arming the Taliban/Afghanistan against the Russians? Trumps arms deal with Saudi Arabia? Fast and Furious?

During Iraq II it was reported civilian casualties numbered over 200,000. The U.S. government tends to suppress reports of civilian and accidental deaths, friendly fire.

To me the idea there should be a difference between "military" and "civilian" use is laughable.
The military is no more responsible than the average American in the use of weapons. It's just nowhere near as sensationalized.

Not to mention, some of the "mass shooting" or "serial shootings" that have taken place in the last 20 years were committed by those in, or who were, in the military.

And lately you read a lot about cops shooting unarmed suspects.
Or cops accidentally discharging their guns at home, in schools, in public.
Or cops shooting bystanders, unloading a full magazine at a suspect and hitting a crowd.

The government is not magically responsible with weapons.
The military is not magically responsible with weapons.
Groups sanctioned by the government allowing them access to firearms are no more responsible than the average american.
Probably less so (I don't want to do the math).
Except for the police it seems the press is simply less sensationalized.


"Emotionally unstable" is vastly different than being "blind."
Pretty easy to determine if someone is blind.
Feel free to let us all know exactly how you measure every private U.S. citizen without interfering with their rights to determine at any point in their life when they are, or become, "emotionally unstable" to the extent they will use a firearm to kill people. Possibly as opposed to poison, gas, explosives, a blunt object, a car or truck.

So banning guns is the solution? Yeah... Tell me how well that worked for heroin and meth. Both banned and illegal yet easier to get than ANY firearm and responsible for 10 times more deaths. Firearms are used defensably more than a millions times a year yet the mainstream media never reports on that. Its all a numbers game . inflate the numbers and delete others so we can achieve our political agenda. In a proud vet and gun owner. If they want to ban them... Come and get them. Just be careful... The barrel may be hot.

Welcome Shawn.

Settle in and read a bit. Forum rules are a good start. They has mods here. :D

Sorry... That was my bad. This is the first forum I ever replied to and it sits close to my heart. I started at the wrong end of the thread. But... Most of what I said still rings true. Tougher laws are not the answer. I was raised in one of the worst areas of Chicago and they have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation yet the crime rate is also the highest. Now I live in an area where the laws are a LOT more relaxed and almost every household has at least one weapon. The crime rate is a fraction of Chicago. The united states is 4th in the world in relation to gun violence. Now if you remove the 5 areas with the highest incidents of gun violence ( which also have the most strict gun laws) the US is 12th from the bottom. Now the cities with the most strict gun laws also having the highest gun violence rates is not a coincidence. Only the bad guys have guns and they know it and exploit it. The reason these rates are not as high in areas with more relaxed gun laws is because the bad guys don't know who's carrying or has a weapon in their home and know there is a better than average chance their target/ victim may shoot back.

Sorry... I got to rambling. Maybe even a little off topic.

Thanks Stan, I'll read them.

Hello boys! I see some familiar faces. :-)

I do not believe there is any serious legislation or momentum behind a desire to 'ban guns'. No one in this thread has suggested guns be 'banned' either.

yea, Hitler didnt suggest it either till he banned and confiscated them...it always starts slow...