Re: The Firearm Debate Thread: Or "This is why we can't have Nice Threads on Bad Stuf
Now, for my personal opinion? First off, the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution has long since ceased to have any value or purpose.
Before someone jumps on my back about how I want to take away everyone's guns and leave only criminals / the military with such: No. This is not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the Amendment, which was based on the idea of having a well-regulated militia who could take up arms in the case of Government abuse, invasion, or so-on has ceased to be practical or applied in any reasonable way, shape, or form. Do people want to hear what an accurate image of a properly respected Second Amendment is? You ready? The National Guard. Not the NRA, not independent firearm owners, the National Guard.
You want to know why? First off, it is a well regulated militia / group of firearm owners. While the standards are less severe than for certain armed branches, you generally must be this sane to be eligible to join and show a continued absence of insanity / irresponsibility to remain within. Versus, say, being able to acquire a free firearm for taking part in [x] promotional business offer and then keeping said firearm until you commit some serious crime.
Second on the Amendment issue, private firearm owners are going to mean jack shit in a Red Dawn-style scenario. Congrats, you have a nine millimeter pistol and a hunting rifle. You know what them invading Norks have? Tanks. And aircraft. Oh yes, having your firearms will be nice for if you try to slip off into the wilderness, or if you take up the very profitable (and, likely, brief) living of a guerilla fighter. But when it comes to repelling them? Have fun. Same goes for if the United States Government for some reason decides "Paul Ryan is the first Life President", as in the end any military action of importance is going to come down to a military branch, either fighting amongst others or dealing with a non-military branch (most probably in a fashion that's either "Military refrains from gunning down civilians" or "Military guns down civilians").
The Second Amendment being cited as a "Constitutional Right" for everyone to own whatever firearms they desire is inane, as it basically ignores the entire purpose of the Amendment to squawk "Something something firearm something something people".
Now, to reinforce that I don't think firearms shouldn't be military-only, private ownership is not wrong or evil. If you can show yourself, routinely, to be a responsible firearm owner, and in a suitable environment for owning a firearm, there is no particular reason to deny someone such a privilege any more than there is to deny ownership of a sword, bow, car, plane, etcetera. However, it's becoming increasingly clear that within the United States the regulations on firearms and firearm ownership greatly need a reform from where they stand now.
And to now briefly address something from the thread that sparked this: Aiming to "put a bullet into that sick fucks brain" is an irresponsible use of a firearm. Why? Well, mostly because this quote is in relation to self defense, and the point of such is to protect yourself and those around you until proper authorities can arrive. If you accidentally hit the skull, or it's the only way to keep yourself safe, that's one thing. But more often than not? If you have the time to properly aim at someone's head and shoot them there, you can probably aim for their arms or legs at the same time. Or, hell, even center-mass, which is significantly more likely to not kill the home-invader.
Note again that I'm not trying to say "Oh man those poor robbers u ebil firearm owners". I'm saying that if your immediate thought with self-defense is "shoot that fucker in the head", put away your firearm and get a psychiatric evaluation to make sure you're fit to own it. Killing someone, self-defense or not, is a very big action, as well as very final.
